Yeah, I'm going to have to sort of disagree with you there. Once you are dead, you are dead. If you are starving, things can still change and you can still have free agency.
I'm comparing death by obliteration to death by starvation.
Sure, maybe you'll find a way to survive a famine, but on average most will die because the math just doesn't add up. Not enough food for everyone. And it ends up killing far more than bombs and bullets, even nukes. Disease and famine are far worse than WMD when the numbers are in.
So maybe we should round up all the poor people and gas them to put them out of their misery?
If we were to regard the life of the average poverty stricken human as being _terrible_, then killing them painlessly and suddenly becomes less abhorrent. Of course, then we need to define criteria for whose lives are of sufficiently bad quality where sudden death is a superior option.
Some nihilists might say all humans satisfy that criteria. Even if you're a wealthy and generally happy person, you will become old and die. If you were suddenly dead at this second with no warning, you would not care - the only downside would be those who remained alive, who presumably would care. Let's recurse until no one cares.
And the universe moves along just the same.
I am not advocating for this at all, but I felt your comment justified some sort of explanation. And I have been thinking about these existential questions quite a bit recently.