Command and Control

[ish mailian]

Why build so many nukes?
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/235/wallslides.pdf

Did you see them, did you see them?
Did you see them in the river?
They were there to wave to you.
Could you tell that the empty-quivered
Brown-skinned Indian on the banks
That were crowded and narrow,
Held a broken arrow?

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:16 AM, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l