Religion (Was Re: Music)

Ian Molton spyro at
Sat Jun 15 06:51:28 PDT 2002

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:28:51 -0500
Archaic <archaic at> wrote:

> 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.

yeah, and patriot missiles were 100% effective too.

and defense not 100% effective against nukes is as bad as one that is 0%

if they fire 500 nukes and you miss 10% of them, that is 50 cities gone.

> > 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.

try 10% of 500 nukes. How many major cities do you have again?

> > 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.

How is a nuke a 'defensive' weapon?

> Why should we not defend? That's like saying that the UK
> was out of control when they built up their anti-air arsonal. 

We werent using NUKES to destroy planes. baloons hanging wires down and
chaff / barrage guns cant be used as weapons of mass destruction.
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