Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!psuvax1!simon
From: simon@psuvax1.UUCP (Janos Simon)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Living (?) with the nuclear nightmar
Message-ID: <1622@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 23:51:48 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1622
Posted: Tue Feb 26 23:51:48 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Feb-85 20:24:18 EST
References: <1237@eagle.UUCP> <15500005@uiucdcsp.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 18

> 
> Nuclear arms were not meant for hugging; they were meant
> for protecting -- and they have done a pretty good job.

Somehow I do not feel terribly protected.
I assume that at least some of the people in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Nicaragua, 
Lebanon, Ethiopia, or East Timor may disagree with the view that they are well 
protected. The Swiss feel sufficiently strongly about the safety of nuclear
weapons, and the argument that they worked well so far beacause they weren't
used (as in the old joke: Ethnic, falling from the Empire State Building, 
falling past the first floor says -so far it's OK) that they require all new
construction to provide fully equipped fallout shelters. Oh well, maybe the
prospect of nuclear winter will make them relax the requirements.

Do you really feel the US is safer now than it was in 1939? In 1945? In 1960?
In 1970?

js