John, in what seems to me to be an infrequent case
of faulty logic claimed:
> I agree, I wish it were different but that's the way it is and I see no
> signs of that changing for the better. H bombs are just too big, too
> numerous, and too cheap, there is no defense against them.
Come now. There is a very simple, low tech defense which is
simply to put enough matter between oneself and any exploding
bombs. Both the U.S. and Russia decided a long time ago that
if you are far enough underground the bombs don't really
create that much of a threat. If one simply inverted the
altitude of much of the U.S. city infrastructure the damage
that bombs would cause would be significantly reduced. Its
only because we have built "up" instead of "down" that we
have a problem to deal with.
Alternately once fiber with sufficient capacity for tele-presence
becomes ubiquitous, people may begin to concentrate themselves
less in major urban centers. If the U.S. population were spread
out over its land area in a uniform way the threat of bombs would
also be significantly reduced.
Bombs are threatening only to specific population and infrastructure
configurations that we happen to have today.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:48 MDT