Religion (Was Re: Music)

Ian Molton spyro at
Sat Jun 15 09:39:33 PDT 2002

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:56:01 -0500
Archaic <archaic at> 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.

in the long run, yes.

> > 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?

Well, in a nuclear war, yes - little places would be wiped out by

and in terrorism... well, you dont make headline news crashing a 747 in
the middle of a desert, compared to a big city, do you?

absolutely, yes - big cities are all 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.

of course, it shows little faith in a treaty to want the good bits and
not trust the co-signers on the dirty stuff. but then, the USA is known
for two things - paranoia, and making enemies...
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