Religion (Was Re: Music)

Archaic archaic at comcast.net
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?

-- 
Archaic

-- 
When all government ...in 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 linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list