Religion (Was Re: Music)

Archaic archaic at
Sat Jun 15 06:56:01 PDT 2002

On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 02:51:28PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> and defense not 100% effective against nukes is as bad as one that is 0%
> effective.

That is utterly ridiculous. They had 2 h-bombs dropped on them. So, if
we had dropped 3 and they only defended 1 out of three, that is as bad
as if all three had landed?!? According to your assumption, hit or miss
is all the same as long as at least one hits. Preposterous.

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

Are you saying that major cities are the only ones that count?

> How is a nuke a 'defensive' weapon?

Ahhh, now I see where you are coming from. The treaty that we removed
ourselves from was not for the purpose of building a nuclear arsonal.
The treaty was aimed at ABMs and ICBMs. We do need long range to defend
against nukes, yet the treaty didn't allow for that.


"America is at that awkward stage.  It's too late to work within the
system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

- Claire Wolfe

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