Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-ean!ubc-cs!robinson
From: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Canadian participation in Star Wars.
Message-ID: <1126@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 17:17:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1126
Posted: Wed Jun 26 17:17:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 19:32:45 EDT
References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <970@mnetor.UUCP> <5704@utzoo.UUCP> <2089@watcgl.UUCP>
Reply-To: robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 19
Summary: 

In article <2089@watcgl.UUCP> jchapman@watcgl.UUCP writes:
>> > I do seriously wonder what we happen if "our side" was to unilateraly disarm.
>> > Would the "ennemy" really have all the resources needed to invade the rest of
>> > the world and maintain their power?  Given that they probably do not have
>> > enough resources to invade with conventional weapons...
>> 
>> If they take it a bit at a time, sure they have.  If we disarm, they don't
>> need to hurry about it.  Keeping civilian populations under control is not
>> nearly as hard as fighting professional armies.
>
> Are "they" going to nuke some small country they want to take over?
> If not then I think the "we" are surely capable of resisting with
> conventional arms.

I don't see why a few well placed *neutron* bombs wouldn't solve the
problem. No more people, but lots of usable real estate. (So much for
resisting with conventional weapons)

J.B. Robinson