> I was specifically avoiding commenting on the legitimacy and use of said powers and instead addressing only what I saw was the core premise of OP: That the US's desire for abilities (maybe that's a better word to use so that we don't conflate legal power with practical power, that is what is possible vs what is allowed) that others do not have is somehow wrong or strange. A core function of all governments, and one that government doesn't exist without, is power. You can't claim jurisdiction without the ability to enforce it. You kind of went off in the weeds and talked about a lot of things I wasn't saying anything about.

Ya, i wrote too much without getting enough clarification, sorry.

> The one point of yours I will respond to is this:
>> I guess it just smells like fascism to me when you submit to this without like... actually thinking about the specifics of each power? Or letting them just spread illegal shit around the world? Maybe i misunderstand. This all seems weird.
> Two things: First and foremost, I don't see how you drew a line from the U.S. preventing export of technologies that enable fascism to the U.S. 'spreading illegal shit'. Kind of a hard turn there, and not really what I, OP, or the article were commenting on.

So i didn't mean to draw the line you describe there, i should be clearer in what i write. If i understand what you are going for by adding your comment to this issue, you were kind of dismissing anyone being "surprised or alarmed", and you were maybe a little annoyed anyone was even talking about it. I am not personally really surprised, but i was suggesting alarm and discussion might be good when government decides to exercise power (and my weeds about this gov in particular and the historical events leading up to the issue at hand), because people should understand they should be a part of what power is exercised. I still don't know if i am misunderstanding, but it seemed you were kinda dismissing people being alarmed because this is kinda just what governments do -- "they do power, what's the alarm?". What i meant about fascism was not the line you suggested but the idea that someone might just glance over the entire issue by saying 'governments do power, the government is posturing to enhance this power, who cares?'. I was suggesting that a bunch of people submitting to the the state building power without involvement or question of the specifics of the powers being built is kind of fascistic.

> Second, power is not equal to fascism. Personal freedoms rely on the power to defend them. You are not free to live if someone else is free to take your life. Even a loving and benevolent government requires the power to protect and care for it's constituents. (Now, don't misread that, and think I'm saying the US government is loving and benevolent, I'm making a broader point), and that power needs to be highly asymmetrical or it simply doesn't serve its purpose.

If one state gets to build asymmetric power, that means other states don't have it, right? So.. those states under your definition here can no longer be loving and benevolent because they can't have enough highly asymmetric power in the reverse direction if something bad happens? Am i simplifying too much or missing your point? How does this work out?

Is prematurely building asymmetry with technology really necessary as you say? What if there is symmetry in all countries, then someone does something bad, we all meet and see this person is behaving incorrectly, and then unite. No individual state has asymmetric power but asymmetric power was constructed and used as needed for this situation.

Am i still way off? What are you trying to get across with your comments here? Are you dismissing people being concerned or am i misunderstanding?