I thought the subsection about safety and the reduction of violence was interesting, specifically the data about war and the casualties that come with it. Overall, military expenditure and deaths due to war have noticeably decreased since the mid 1900s. I think it is important to examine this data alongside the data for nuclear warheads, which the website includes as well. A considerable decrease in the nuclear stockpile of countries on the world stage (United States, Russia/USSR, etc …) happened during the same time that war and war-related deaths were on a decline. Any decrease in death is good, however, I think that this decrease is due to the presence of nuclear warheads.
War related deaths plumpeted around 1945, right when the Cold War began and countries were steadily building up a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Advancements in military technology enabled the production of nuclear weapons, and this advancement could be seen as progress in human development. It could be argued that the presence of nuclear weapons could be a positive thing because it staves off most war, and then in turn the death that comes with it. Those who are in possession of nuclear weapons are often cautious to use them because their use would be catastrophic, especially since military technology has progressed even further from the 1940s, meaning that modern day nuclear weapons are far more lethal than before. That being said, I think if political tensions between countries or states gets to a point where nuclear weapons are being widely used, the death toll would be unprecedented.
So, the manufacturing of nuclear weapons illustrates human development in the sense that the magnitudinal potential of military technology is preventing war from happening in a lot of scenarios, and therefore less people are dying from war. It could be said that while war related deaths have declined because of nuclear weapons, the mere idea that these weapons could wipe out entire countries or areas of the world actually is not development because humans have produced something so ruinous that its use could destroy any and all progress we have made. The global population should not have to live in fear that the world as we know it could dramatically change if a country decided to exploit their nuclear weapons, that is not free living. Amartya Sen’s definition of human development is freedom, and being paralyzed by fear is not freedom. Dan brings up a good point that most of this technology used by scientists, developers, and the military does not get to the root of the problem, and consequently the problem still exists. Nuclear weapons are not a solution to political and social issues between hegemonies, it is just a measure taken against an opponent. In order to keep the amount of war-related deaths relatively low independent of nuclear warheads, these countries must peacefully work out their affairs with their constituents. I do acknowledge that this is a big undertaking, and might be impossible, but it is the only true remedy to war that does not involve refraining from war because of unsound intimidation via nuclear weapons.