Command and Control

[rich]

no disagreement from me on that, man.


On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/e5b7d4e9/attachment.html>