Re: The Balance of Terror

[TruthMangler <tmg@dev.null>]

Timothy C. May wrote:
> At 12:22 AM -0400 4/12/97, Jeremiah A Blatz wrote:
> 
> >peace. No logical holes there. However, the premise that a large nuke
> >will keep some 3rd world dictator from lobbing some Exocets at your
> >ships is, well, provably false.
> 
> Given that the peace was kept, for whatever ultimate reasons, saying the
> Peacekeeper had a "provably false" mission or name is unsupported.

  The same could be said for Charles Manson's aims being "provably
false". The country has been going downhill since the 'Communist plot'
to flouridate the water supply. "Provably false" has little meaning
in this context, as well.
 
> (We never have the luxury of running history over and over again, under
> different controlled conditions, so we can't say for sure what caused
> things to happen the way they did. I am persuaded that the balance of
> terror in the 1950s-80s played a major role in the avoidance for 50 years
> of any major wars. At horrendous cost to the U.S. and U.S.S.R., to be sure,
> and better ways could probably have been found. But major wars _were_
> avoided.)

  I know it's midnight, the drugs are kicking in, and there are
few posts to respond to on the weekend, but please make an attempt
to start a new thread, as opposed to taking the easy way out and
piling new drivel on top of old drivel.

Dr. TruthRoberts