Technotranscendence <email@example.com> Wrote:
> Why the focus on a land invasion
I don't believe I did.
>Defensive technology was doing fine until about 1918
Castles and forts stopped being important long before then.
>If, e.g., Iraq or Serbia had the US level of technological and military
>development would the recent wars with them have turned out the same?
Of course not, and we would have been fools to start a war with such a country.
> Let's talk about a more realistic example. Suppose Norh Korea were to
> launch three or four nuclear armed missles at the US's West Coast, say,
> targetting Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle. Stopping one
> of those missles would save one city from any immediate damage.
In the cold war people said we don't have to worry about a suitcase H bomb from
Russia because the Russians haven't invented the suitcase yet. It was a joke, and
so are the reasons I've heard to justify Star Wars. If North Korea wanted to kill us
and they had The Bomb why on earth would they send it to us with a ICBM and not a
UPS? An ICBM is expensive, harder to make than The Bomb and everybody knows
where it was launched from. UPS is cheap, easy, and nobody will know where it
came from, all they'll know is that Seattle no longer exists.
John K Clark firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:48 MDT