You think so? I've had discussions on the topic of warfare off and on throughout the time I've been on HN, and they're usually pretty respectful. Indeed, I think that's one of the unique things about this place.

For example, a couple years ago, I had a discussion about drone warfare -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4957015 -- that covered very similar conceptual ground. I thought it was pretty civil.

Indeed, I would have thought the technologization of warfare was something of general interest to this community, and a legitimate topic of discussion -- being at the intersection of technology and interesting changes in the way the world works. I didn't think it was just stupid politics, but that can be a landmine...

His comment can only be read as "advocating warfare and violence as a solution to nation-state conflicts" if the reader injects it.

If we can add a layer of conflict-resolution between open diplomacy and global thermonuclear war, there's something to be said for the fact that it may provide additional margin before greater escalation occurs.

That's not advocating for war/or violence, that's just responsible conflict-resolution.

It'd be just as fallacious as my saying anyone opposed to cyber warfare must prefer that we cut to the chase and nuke the globe.

You can oppose cyber warfare but also prefer it to something you oppose even more.