• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Tony Stark Hand His Suit Over To The US Government?

Should Tony Stark Hand Over The Iron Man Suit?


  • Total voters
    30
No it applies to defense contractors; such as, Lockheed Martin, now he may have been able to claim ownership of the Arc Reactor itself. however, any weapons systems that were designed while Stark Enterprises was under government military contract would be government property, as I already stated the prototype itself was built from the parts of weapons systems specifically designed for the military. Think about it, Lockheed Martin can't designed an advanced multi-role fighter, claim proprietary ownership and refuse to give it to the government and instead put it on the open market.

Which is actually ridiculous. The prototype, at least going by the movie version, was built from stolen parts under duress in a cave in the middle of the desert. The U.S. government could no more claim ownership of the Mk. I than the Russians could if he was also using stolen Russian components. By the time he built the Mk. II suit, he had already given up the weapons business. The ARC reactor was specifically said, again in the movies, to have been an experiment in non-weapons technology, hence it wouldn't have been something designed or built for the military. Lockheed-Martin is still a contractor for the military. If they quit and started designing civilian craft, the government would have no control over them.
 
What a contradiction.... have you NEVER heard of the Non-Aggression Principle?

Fascist libertarians dont believe in that principle. ;)
 
Which is actually ridiculous. The prototype, at least going by the movie version, was built from stolen parts under duress in a cave in the middle of the desert. The U.S. government could no more claim ownership of the Mk. I than the Russians could if he was also using stolen Russian components. By the time he built the Mk. II suit, he had already given up the weapons business. The ARC reactor was specifically said, again in the movies, to have been an experiment in non-weapons technology, hence it wouldn't have been something designed or built for the military. Lockheed-Martin is still a contractor for the military. If they quit and started designing civilian craft, the government would have no control over them.

There's got to be a law about private energy sources with nuclear capabilities, so again I go back to the Arc Reactor which was in fact designed while Stark Enterprises was a Defense Contractor and I would argue that the Mark I design constitutes the prototype for the Mark II the deciding factor being the Arc Reactor which is the same in both. Furthermore; Tony is not using the suit for civilians uses, obviously.
 
There's got to be a law about private energy sources with nuclear capabilities, so again I go back to the Arc Reactor which was in fact designed while Stark Enterprises was a Defense Contractor and I would argue that the Mark I design constitutes the prototype for the Mark II the deciding factor being the Arc Reactor which is the same in both. Furthermore; Tony is not using the suit for civilians uses, obviously.

The Arc Reactor isn't nuclear. It was supposed to be an alternative power supply. It was designed and built by Howard Stark as a publicity stunt. It failed to have any commercial application, that's why it's just a curiosity running the Stark facility. Tony made it smaller and it isn't a part of either suit, it's part of Tony's body, hence the government can't claim it regardless. It just also happens to power the suits. And there are plenty of civilian weapons applications, in fact, the weaponry of at least the Mk. I and Mk. II suits are entirely accidental, the repulsor technology is part of the flight systems, it just so happens to be quite useful as a weapon as well.
 
No, he should not hand over the suit. He made it, came up with the technology on his own and funded the suit. The government can't (shouldn't be able to) use "eminent domain" to take the suit if they had no part in the design or the funding.
 
No, he should not hand over the suit. He made it, came up with the technology on his own and funded the suit. The government can't (shouldn't be able to) use "eminent domain" to take the suit if they had no part in the design or the funding.

What if that person proves to be irresponsible with it? Other question: under current law can someone have their guns taken from them if they're convicted of a felony?
 
What if that person proves to be irresponsible with it? Other question: under current law can someone have their guns taken from them if they're convicted of a felony?

So? It belongs to him.

People are irresponsible with guns every day, and we aren't taking them away. The suit is a weapon. If I were Tony Stark and someone tried to take my suit, I'd sue him for violating my 2nd amendment right.
 
So? It belongs to him.

People are irresponsible with guns every day, and we aren't taking them away. The suit is a weapon. If I were Tony Stark and someone tried to take my suit, I'd sue him for violating my 2nd amendment right.

If someone is unstable and threatens the lives of others, and/or commits a violent crime, I would consider it odd not to take away their guns, or their superior military grade hardware, for that matter.
 
If someone is unstable and threatens the lives of others, and/or commits a violent crime, I would consider it odd not to take away their guns, or their superior military grade hardware, for that matter.

But Tony Stark hasn't really done that. He isn't unstable. He doesn't threaten the lives of others. He hasn't committed a violent crime.
 
But Tony Stark hasn't really done that. He isn't unstable. He doesn't threaten the lives of others. He hasn't committed a violent crime.

Watch the party scene from Iron Man 3.

When I saw that I was like, "Alright, no more toys that go boom for you."
 
Watch the party scene from Iron Man 3.

When I saw that I was like, "Alright, no more toys that go boom for you."

He did some stupid things, granted, but he saved the world like 4 times with that suit. Dozens more if we're including the comic books. He was human and made mistakes but when **** got bad, he had everyone's back.
 
Watch the party scene from Iron Man 3.

When I saw that I was like, "Alright, no more toys that go boom for you."

That was Iron Man 2, not 3.
 
He did some stupid things, granted, but he saved the world like 4 times with that suit. Dozens more if we're including the comic books. He was human and made mistakes but when **** got bad, he had everyone's back.

It's a bona fide moral dilemma. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you had the authority to let Stark keep his suit or to strip him of it. Now as you say, he's in the habit of saving the world. Unfortunately he's also in the habit of getting epically drunk and nearly killing over a hundred innocent people in the immediate vicinity, as he did in Ironman...2. So he's unstable, narcisstic and an alcoholic. These traits combined are pretty good at resulting in tragedy, given enough time. So what do you tell yourself, knowing beforehand Stark's history of behavior, the day he gets drunk again, puts on Iron Man and really does kill several hundred people?
 
Which was a really stupid idea, the real strength of Iron Man is that Tony Stark chooses to put it on, he's not a mutant, he's not blue, he doesn't have wings, he's a normal person who chooses to put on the armor and be a hero. By using Extremis, which I hate with a passion, he's essentially taken away all of the things that made him a great character to begin with.

I don't think so myself, he is simply taking his suit technology to the next level. He is still human he just has cool new accessories. :thumbs:
 
No it applies to defense contractors; such as, Lockheed Martin, now he may have been able to claim ownership of the Arc Reactor itself. however, any weapons systems that were designed while Stark Enterprises was under government military contract would be government property, as I already stated the prototype itself was built from the parts of weapons systems specifically designed for the military. Think about it, Lockheed Martin can't designed an advanced multi-role fighter, claim proprietary ownership and refuse to give it to the government and instead put it on the open market.

It only applies to Defense Contractors under contract, and then only to the degree of the contract. If it is simply a purchase contract then the government really has no say as to what a company may do, except only by law which is fairly limited. Lockheed very well could design a fighter and put it on the market and it has been done in the past, the last that comes to mind is Northrups T-20 Tiger shark. Advance plane development takes boatloads of money so you don't see manufacturers developing warplanes anymore. They want to let the government fund the research and prototyping.
 
Last edited:
There's got to be a law about private energy sources with nuclear capabilities, so again I go back to the Arc Reactor which was in fact designed while Stark Enterprises was a Defense Contractor and I would argue that the Mark I design constitutes the prototype for the Mark II the deciding factor being the Arc Reactor which is the same in both. Furthermore; Tony is not using the suit for civilians uses, obviously.

Actually that's the sticky widget we have now, because of development in weak nuclear force energy. There is literally no regs for it.
 
It's a bona fide moral dilemma. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you had the authority to let Stark keep his suit or to strip him of it. Now as you say, he's in the habit of saving the world. Unfortunately he's also in the habit of getting epically drunk and nearly killing over a hundred innocent people in the immediate vicinity, as he did in Ironman...2. So he's unstable, narcisstic and an alcoholic. These traits combined are pretty good at resulting in tragedy, given enough time. So what do you tell yourself, knowing beforehand Stark's history of behavior, the day he gets drunk again, puts on Iron Man and really does kill several hundred people?

To be fair it was one incident, nobody got hurt, and it was only because he was going through some tough stuff.

One incident after saving my ass dozens of times? I'd be prepared to let him keep it. However, if he continued to abuse it and actually did get people hurt...that would definitely change.
 
To be fair it was one incident, nobody got hurt, and it was only because he was going through some tough stuff.

One incident after saving my ass dozens of times? I'd be prepared to let him keep it. However, if he continued to abuse it and actually did get people hurt...that would definitely change.

But then the blood of the people he hurt would be on your hands. After all, you observed the party incident and said, "give the guy another chance."

By the way, this type of discussion can get nasty fast, so let me clarify that when I call something a "bona fide moral dilemma" I'm specifically illustrating a situation in which there are two terrible choices and neither of them are necessarily correct. So if there's the slightest potential for me sounding like I'm about to accuse you of being a terrible person, rest assured that's not where I'm going with this. I'm just asking you consider all the facts.
 
Last edited:
But then the blood of the people he hurt would be on your hands. After all, you observed the party incident and said, "give the guy another chance."

By the way, this type of discussion can get nasty fast, so let me clarify that when I call something a "bona fide moral dilemma" I'm specifically illustrating a situation in which there are two terrible choices and neither of them are necessarily correct. So if there's the slightest potential for me sounding like I'm about to accuse you of being a terrible person, rest assured that's not where I'm going with this. I'm just asking you consider all the facts.

Yeah it's a tough dilemma, but statistically speaking he's more prone to do good with the suit than bad. Millions of lives saved put up against one situation where nobody actually got hurt? Those are pretty good odds I'd say.
 
Of course he should the government is our friend, and they only act in the citizens best interest.

:lamo
 
I don't really know how to discuss the regulation of magic.
 
Tony is basically a terrorist, by every legal definition. He meddles in other countries, kills citizens of hose countries, without the sanction of a government. At very least he on the same level as ISIS or Al Qaeda. That he happens to fight for reasons we approve of doesn't really change this. Freedom fighters vs terrorists and all that. On a practical level, for all the possible good that Tony can do as Iron man, widespread implementation of that technology could do a lot more. This includes the arc reactor (a huge leap in clean, sustainable energy), AI (JARVIS is easily the most advanced computer in the whole world) and the armor (prosthesis, protection, and mobility)... all of those would represent huge leaps forward technologically. If one person had those, it would be horrifically selfish to deny that technology to others.
 
Back
Top Bottom