His literal words were “be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike”. As something that, as a policy, would be required (to hopefully prevent any datacenters from appearing in an unmonitored fashion). In a discussion of the level of response to the problem that would be needed.
He does not in fact call for existing datacenters to be bombed, especially by individuals/unlawfully. He is calling for an international regime where rogue datacenters do not appear because signatories of an international treaty would be willing to destroy it by an airstrike.
His literal words are very easy to take out of context and misrepresent, but he is very much not calling for immediate destruction of any datacenters, and in general he is calling for a policy that would never need to be used.
His literal words were “be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike”. As something that, as a policy, would be required (to hopefully prevent any datacenters from appearing in an unmonitored fashion). In a discussion of the level of response to the problem that would be needed.
He does not in fact call for existing datacenters to be bombed, especially by individuals/unlawfully. He is calling for an international regime where rogue datacenters do not appear because signatories of an international treaty would be willing to destroy it by an airstrike.
His literal words are very easy to take out of context and misrepresent, but he is very much not calling for immediate destruction of any datacenters, and in general he is calling for a policy that would never need to be used.