I would expect that every nuclear power with the ability to project power that far has such concrete plans, simply as an exercise in precaution. I don't expect them to be used.
-Adam Markus Maurer wrote: > In lthe Monday New Zurich newspaper I have read that a nation (which name I > will not mention here for good reason) has concrete plans to attack 3 atom > fabric locations in the Iran with nuclear bombs. > > *Some* people can't wait for WW III it seems :-( > Markus > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > P. J. Alling > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:34 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: PESO - American Fence > > > There is a matter of proportion however nuclear weapons are more the > province of governments. A single person with a gun is unlikely to kill > a lot of people before they're stopped, (by my definition of a lot > anyway). A government with an army and a lot of guns, or a single > nuclear weapon can kill a whole lot of people. For that reason alone I > believe logic dictates tis better for individuals to be armed and > governments to be disarmed. > > Tom C wrote: >> Guns kill just like nuclear weapons kill. In fact guns have killed more >> people than nuclear weapons... so far. >> >> In retrospect, *probably* both inventions were a bad idea. They have both >> led to untold injury, death, and suffering. Their purpose is largely, to >> kill, unlike other inventions which may endanger life. >> >> Am I anti-gun? No. Just making a point. Sure this is simplistic, but > the >> truth often is. >> >> Tom C. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: PESO - American Fence >>> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:35:12 -0500 >>> >>> Sorry, I must disagree. An armed victim is more likely to defend >>> herself than a disarmed victim. To paraphrase a member of the English >>> House of Lords in the losing battle against the handgun ban in GB. >>> 'Firearms are used to defend the weak against the strong. To restrict >>> their use by citizens is to deny them the right to self defense. >>> Governments may have the power to do that, but should not have the >>> right.' Apparently the British Government no longer believes in the >>> Citizens right of self defense. Do you? >>> >>> >>> William Robb wrote: >>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: PESO - American Fence >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hand guns don't cause crime, if that were true once Great Britain >>>>> >>> banned >>> >>>>> all hand guns, (and made shotgun ownership much more difficult), >>>>> >>> violent >>> >>>>> crime would have been eliminated, in fact it increased, (violent crime >>>>> rates in England are now higher than in the US). I doubt that >>>>> >>> smuggling >>> >>>>> firearms is the cause of violent crime in Canada, it's a symptom of >>>>> something else. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Straw man argument, Peter. >>>> Gun crimes are more likely to end up with the victim being more >>>> >>> seriously >>> >>>> hurt or dead than other types of weapons crimes, and can be used at >>>> >>> range >>> >>>> where the victim has less chance of self defence. >>>> >>>> William Robb >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>> The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. >>> -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > -- > > The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. > -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
