agent_turtle

Your argument is that stronger nations bully weaker nations, and somehow this supports the idea that there should be only one strong nation.

That's because we elected a clown, not because our military is weak.

Again, you're not making the argument you think you are.

"Russia attacked a weaker country because it is stronger. This is why we need one country to be stronger than any other country."

Mutually Assured Destruction works because of the Mutually part.

Russia does not use nukes because the US and EU exists as deterrents.

It's naive to frame this as a binary choice between disarmament and creating a single unaccountable entity for all of the world's data.

Cool, now imagine if Nazi Germany had that monopoly.

You're making the case for why it is so dangerous for the world that one nation/company has this much power over others.

Part of the question here is how much power one company should have and who is responsible for it. A government is ultimately beholden to its citizens; a company is only beholden to shareholders.

The nuclear deterrent works because of MAD. If only one nation had the capacity for nuclear weapons, there's a strong case to be made that we'd be living in a totalitarian world state or at the very least vassals to the dominant state.