The development and use of the atomic bomb was a highly controversial and deeply troubling concept for many reasons. The power and destructive potential of such a weapon had never been seen before, and it was clear that regardless of whether it was used for war or peace, the consequences for humanity would be devastating. The destructive power of the atomic bomb had been greatly underestimated and misunderstood, which led to grave consequences for those directly impacted by its use.

The destructive force of the atomic bomb caused widespread death, injury, and destruction. The long-term effects of exposure to radiation were not fully understood at the time, resulting in even more suffering and loss of life for years to come. It was a weapon that had the potential to cause immense harm to not only those directly impacted, but also to the environment and the future of the planet as a whole.

In retrospect, it is clear that the atomic bomb was never going to empower people in any way. While simple weapons have often empowered the weak, complex weapons like the atomic bomb have primarily helped the strong. The emergence in our collective unconscious of new, highly destructive weapons like the death star in science fiction has only heightened these concerns and fears. These weapons are not only highly destructive, but they also strip power away from the common people, leaving them vulnerable to the will of those who possess such weapons.

In many ways, the use of highly destructive weapons like the atomic bomb and the death star signal a return to a world of slavery and tyranny. As the power and control of vectors continue to increase, the ability of the common man to control his own affairs and maintain autonomy in his life has decreased. In essence, the development and use of highly destructive weapons have only served to reinforce power imbalances and contribute to the loss of freedom for the masses.

The idea that simple weapons empower the weak while complex weapons mainly benefit the strong has been evident throughout history. The use of gunpowder, for instance, played a crucial role in the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie could leverage the power of gunpowder to defeat their feudal overlords and establish a new order. Similarly, during times when the dominant weapon is complex, nepotism tends to thrive, as those in power can maintain their positions by controlling access to these weapons. In contrast, during times when the dominant weapon is simple, common people have a greater chance to succeed as these weapons are easier to obtain and use effectively.

This dynamic can be observed in various periods of history. For example, in medieval Europe, knights and nobles held the power, as they had access to advanced weapons such as swords and armor. However, with the introduction of gunpowder weapons, the balance of power shifted. The feudal lords could not maintain their control as easily, and the bourgeoisie were able to overthrow them.

Similarly, in the modern era, the development of more complex weapons like the atomic bomb has given powerful countries an advantage over weaker ones. The creation of such weapons has required significant investment in resources and technology, which only a few nations can afford. Consequently, countries with access to these weapons hold more power, making it difficult for others to resist them.

In contrast, simpler weapons such as knives and clubs can be easily made and used by anyone, making it easier for the weaker individuals or groups to defend themselves against those in power. This can be seen in various contexts, such as in street fights, where a smaller and weaker person armed with a knife can quickly level the playing field against a larger and stronger opponent.

The notion that modern weapons of warfare are fundamentally oppressive is rooted in the fact that they require a high degree of technical expertise to operate, and are often only accessible to those with significant resources and power. In contrast, computer viruses are relatively simple to create and distribute, and can be used by individuals or groups with even limited technical knowledge.

This difference in accessibility between modern weapons of war and computer viruses has important implications for the relationship between power and control. When weapons are beyond the reach of ordinary people, it undermines their ability to have control over their own lives and affairs. This is particularly true in the context of modern warfare, where the state and other powerful actors often have a monopoly on the most advanced weapons.

In contrast, the use of computer viruses can be seen as more democratic precisely because it enables a wider range of actors to exert control over their own affairs. For example, an individual or group with limited resources and technical knowledge can use a computer virus to disrupt the activities of a larger, more powerful actor. This can be seen as a form of resistance against oppression and a way to level the playing field.

Furthermore, the use of computer viruses can be seen as a way to promote greater transparency and accountability. In many cases, powerful actors may seek to hide their activities from public view, making it difficult for ordinary people to hold them accountable. However, the use of computer viruses can expose these activities and help to bring them to light.

In sum, while modern weapons of warfare like planes and bombs are fundamentally oppressive, the use of computer viruses can be seen as a more democratic form of resistance against oppression. By enabling a wider range of actors to exert control over their own affairs, computer viruses have the potential to level the playing field and promote greater transparency and accountability.

Overall, the complex nature of advanced weapons like the atomic bomb creates a power imbalance, making it difficult for common people to succeed. However, simpler weapons provide a level playing field, allowing weaker individuals and groups to defend themselves and achieve success.

The creation of the atomic bomb gave rise to new centers of power, but it also stripped power away from the common people. The increased power of states and other entities has diminished the control that ordinary people have over their affairs, reducing their ability to influence the state of affairs. This has led to a concentration of power in the hands of a few, further marginalizing those who are already at a disadvantage.

Scientific advancements were supposed to propel humanity forward, but in the case of the atomic bomb, they have taken it backwards. The use of such a destructive weapon has robbed people of their power to resist and has pushed the world towards the reintroduction of slavery, reversing the progress made towards a more just society. The lessons of history suggest that we need to be cautious about the development and use of new technologies, and ensure that they serve the greater good rather than being used to reinforce existing power structures.