Were Stark and Hammer the only weapons manufacturers in the MCU or something?????
I know, this seems like a dumb question. But discussions with other people in the fandom have genuinely led me to consider this, and I'm worried I'm missing some key info here.
Key example here: I keep seeing people say that Wanda's family wouldn't have been killed if it weren't for Tony's weapons. But, were Tony's weapons the only ones on the market? Can't people be killed by other weapons brands? Can't terrorists steal or buy these weapons? We see mass shootings/killings/massacres done by terrorists or militia with the less technologically advanced weapons we have in the real world.
Another example, and don't get me wrong here, Tony was a horrible person at the start of IM1: people imply that the start and end of SI's weapons era was the start and end of conflicts around the world. Like, I get that SI's weapons are top notch, but are they the only ones? We see plenty of signs that world-peace hasn't been achieved in the MCU even after Iron Man, and yet SI stopped manufacturing weapons after this and tony started blowing up weapons caches. And I get that stopping weapons manufacturing made killing people less efficient, but it's not like the US didn't instantly set up another contract with Hammer Industries right after it. And if they did end that contract, they must have gotten another one with another company. If the US were ever left weaponless, things would collapse pretty quickly.
I mean, the thing is, I keep seeing the "he manufactured weapons" argument used a lot to show how everything in the MCU is Tony's fault, and how he's a horrible person (keep in mind that Howard Stark chose to start weapons manufacturing, Tony was born into it, and Tony chose to end it).
And like, yeah, I think it's illogical, but there's no way that many people use that argument without it having any merit. So what do you guys think?
Key example here: I keep seeing people say that Wanda's family wouldn't have been killed if it weren't for Tony's weapons. But, were Tony's weapons the only ones on the market? Can't people be killed by other weapons brands? Can't terrorists steal or buy these weapons? We see mass shootings/killings/massacres done by terrorists or militia with the less technologically advanced weapons we have in the real world.
Another example, and don't get me wrong here, Tony was a horrible person at the start of IM1: people imply that the start and end of SI's weapons era was the start and end of conflicts around the world. Like, I get that SI's weapons are top notch, but are they the only ones? We see plenty of signs that world-peace hasn't been achieved in the MCU even after Iron Man, and yet SI stopped manufacturing weapons after this and tony started blowing up weapons caches. And I get that stopping weapons manufacturing made killing people less efficient, but it's not like the US didn't instantly set up another contract with Hammer Industries right after it. And if they did end that contract, they must have gotten another one with another company. If the US were ever left weaponless, things would collapse pretty quickly.
I mean, the thing is, I keep seeing the "he manufactured weapons" argument used a lot to show how everything in the MCU is Tony's fault, and how he's a horrible person (keep in mind that Howard Stark chose to start weapons manufacturing, Tony was born into it, and Tony chose to end it).
And like, yeah, I think it's illogical, but there's no way that many people use that argument without it having any merit. So what do you guys think?
Commentaires
Who were they? They didn't write their names on the side of their missiles, only Stark did.
she was 25 in aou
AIM, ROXXON. Then there's a bunch doing chemical stuff.
So while there are many weapon manufacturers, Stark was the one that could tilt the balance.
There’s like 15 years between her parents dying and her going after Stark. During that time, it’s conceivable, even likely, that the leaders of the dissident groups were caught and executed or killed in combat.
So if the people who dropped the bomb are dead, and you’re still angry, who do you go after next? Maybe the people who sold them the bomb in the first place?
You also need to remember when her place got hit with a bomb there are two highly important pieces of information:
1.) When the attack challenged and for years afterwards Tony was still extremely proud and showed off how much his weapons were destroying people. In the first movie he literally mentions that he likes the nickname "merchant of death".
2.) Wanda and Pietro spent two days trapped with a Stark missile, his company's logo facing them that whole time. Days of agony, afraid of moving because one won't move might make the missile explode. That kind of thing can traumatize someone.
And why not blame the attackers? Well, that's because the attackers were the American Air force. Wanda and Pietro were shown to be in anti-American protests. They hated both the States AND Stark. Hydra used the fact that the twins already had a strong negative opinion on Tony to sign them up for the experiments.
https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Novi_Grad_Bombings
A lot of problem questions comes down to who profits. Bullies gonna bully. Why is the world not coming together and stopping this bully or that one, right? Like the teacher who doesn't do enough. And who is making bank? Is someone wanting the bully to bully so they get something out of it. Wanda is looking beyond the war and at why was her country allowed to be so devastated. Stark is one of the MCU's major military industrial complex players. His company is supplying all sides. This was established in Iron Man 1 as a big weight for Tony. Wanda is a reap what you sow, and it's why she so easily sides with Ultron. She doesn't just blame Stark, but she sees him as fuelling war across the world.