Religion (Was Re: Music)

Timothy Bauscher timothy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Jun 15 07:15:08 PDT 2002


On Sat, Jun 15, 2002 at 07:28:51AM -0500, Archaic 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.

Hardly. The US is only capable of destroying so many
at a time. If a country sent 1, i think we would have
about a 50% chance of destroying it while it was still
airborne. If a country sent 5 nuclear weapons, you can
kiss our asses goodbye.

What _really_ makes me laugh is the stupid idea some
people have that pointing a light at a nuclear weapon
would blow it up.

I also laugh at the same people who insist that we
could prevent an asertoid collision by harnassing the
sun's light and beeming millions of miles across space
at a target miles wide. They believe that by doing this,
we would move the asteroid an inch off its trajectory
and it would miss Earth.

That is total hogwash. We lack the ability to monitor
more than 3% of space at a time. The few powerful
telescopes we have are pointed at the blonde next door.
Anyone who has ever used a flashlight before knows
that the light loses its focus quickly. In order to have
a "laser" powerful enough to even make an asteroid giggle,
the gun would have to be the size of Texas.

> > 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.

One nuke would take out a state or two, but not too
much more (unless you are talking northeastern states).
Imagine the chaos afterwards, the effect on the economy,
and the production of food, etc. Then, while we were
down, there is no way of stopping more 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?

Ian, You might be suprised how much Clinton took away
from our homeland security.

-- 
timothy(at)linuxfromscratch.org

-*- "Share and Enjoy" || "Go stick your head in a pig" -*-
-- 
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