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