Causality? WW2=>nukes, cold war=>arpanet=>internet, surely?
On 2/12/07, micky coughes <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hmm, let's see.
> Nukes => cold war => arpanet => internet
> Yup, looks ok.
> On 2/12/07, Olsen, Jason <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The
> > > US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe
> > [snip]
> > > If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just
> > > bomb the densest population centers.
> > To borrow from snarky comments past:
> > Unless Vendor C has introduced a "no nuclear-apocalpyse" command that I
> > need to enable in IOS, it seems that this thread has wandered far from
> > the flock and subsequently lost most any relevance to the listserv
> > and/or topic that spawned it. Cold War strategy is fascinating and all
> > (I do mean that in a non-snarky way) but does it really belong on NANOG
> > after it has seemingly dropped any pretense of being an analogy for
> > anything list-relevant?
> > -Feren
> > Sr Network Engineer
> > DeVry University