All those armed drones that can track footsteps and have facial recognition that we deploy in foreign countries are for defense, obviously — we know this because they’re funded by the department of DEFENSE. The government wouldn’t ever misrepresent aggression as defense, right? RIGHT?
If you have to develop the weapons in order to prevent them, what’s the difference?
All those armed drones that can track footsteps and have facial recognition that we deploy in foreign countries are for defense, obviously — we know this because they’re funded by the department of DEFENSE. The government wouldn’t ever misrepresent aggression as defense, right? RIGHT?
If you have to develop the weapons in order to prevent them, what’s the difference?