Command and Control

[Monte Davis]

It's plausible that nukes did discourage a direct US/USSR conflict
(although counterfactuals are always tricky). My question is *how many*
were ever needed to do so. 100 or 200 could cause more death and ruin than
WWI. Did our peak of 31,000 in 1967, or the USSR's.peak of 45,000 in 1987,
make us safer? The fucking things can't be uninvented, and I don't foresee
enough trust for any nation to believe an adversary has gone to zero -- but
we've dropped by nearly 90% since those peaks. We should do so again.

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:42 PM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> tangentially, nukes did prevent a hot war between the US-USSR yet that
> division metastasized globally to destabilize just about every theatre,
> conventionally--asia, latin and south america, africa, the middle east,
> repercussions of which we are still coming to terms with. so much waste,
> corruption and death. ww3 did happen, by proxy
>
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> History is a Step-Function and often trips....
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 11:37 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> INTRODUCING THE MUSEUM OF FAILURE, A REMINDER THAT WITH INNOVATION
>>> COMES COLOSSAL FLOPS
>>>
>>> https://scout.wisc.edu/report/current
>>> -
>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170501/26ff374f/attachment.html>