Re: Request for topic death on Cold War history (was "RE: Every incident is an opportunity")

["Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell () gmail com>]

Causality? WW2=>nukes, cold war=>arpanet=>internet, surely?

On 2/12/07, micky coughes <coughes () gmail com> wrote:
> Hmm, let's see.
>
> Nukes => cold war => arpanet => internet
>
> Yup, looks ok.
>
> On 2/12/07, Olsen, Jason <jolsen () devry com> 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
> >
> >