Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!decvax!cca!mirror!misc!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pie From the Sky
Message-ID: <117200103@inmet>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 09:44:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.117200103
Posted: Mon Sep 22 09:44:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 07:13:01 EDT
References: <8559@tektronix.UUCP>
Lines: 19
Nf-ID: #R:tektronix.UUCP:-855900:inmet:117200103:000:880
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw    Sep 22 09:44:00 1986


In article <8559@tektronix.UUCP> davest@tektronix.UUCP (Dave Stewart) writes:
>>	However, in light of the current view of the ecological impact
>>of an all-out nuclear exchange, it would not matter where one is located
>>on the planet - it's probably lights out.  WAR DAY and all aside, it
>>is naive to think that the survivalist approach will work.

*Is* there a current view? From what I've read, there isn't.
Some experts still believe in "nuclear winter"; others deny it;
many are unsure; there has even been talk of a "nuclear summer". 

Similar uncertainty exists as to other impacts.

*Probably lights out* may still be true - *because* of this 
unpredictability. Unexpected effects are what's likely to get us.

However, what's wrong with a few individuals trying  to  increase
their  chances  of  survival, however marginal? They are an extra
insurance for the species.