Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!riddle
From: riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Doomsday machines revisited
Message-ID: <3167@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Aug-84 13:43:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.3167
Posted: Wed Aug 22 13:43:43 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Aug-84 02:59:01 EDT
References: <142@intelod.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Tx. at Houston-in-the-Hills
Lines: 13

True, no one in his right mind would seriously propose building a 1960's-
style Doomsday Machine, and for all the reasons you named.  There is,
however, one crucial difference between a classical DM and its modern
nuclear winter analogue: if the nuclear winter theory is correct, then no
one need propose building a DM; we have already done so inadvertently.  The
recognition that we are already sitting on a perfectly functional Doomsday
Machine leaves us with two questions: (1) why do we need to spend more
money on additional weapons systems when we already have the ultimate
weapon, and (2) what, if anything, can we do to disarm it or at least
forestall its use?

--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddle