Religion (Was Re: Music)

Archaic archaic at
Sat Jun 15 05:28:51 PDT 2002

On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 11:35:11AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> There IS no defense against a nuke attack.

That is naive. The ability to shoot down nukes has already been shown to
be feasible.

> even if only a few got through, it'd be just as devastating as if they
> all did.

That notion truly baffles me. One nuke is not enough to destroy this
country. Devastating as it would be, it wouldn't be as bad as ten nukes.

> the US military is just out of control again and looking for excuses to
> build up an arsenal.

Not again, still. But regardless of all other things, allowing for the
building of defensive weapons as opposed to offensive weapons is, IMO, a
noble idea. Why should we not defend? That's like saying that the UK was
out of control when they built up their anti-air arsonal. Should they
have instead allowed the bombing of their country continue to dessimate
the people?


When all government little as in great things... shall be drawn to
Washington as the center of all power; it will render powerless the
checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal
and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1821

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-chat mailing list