XPost: uk.d-i-y   
   From: tony@bancom.co.uk   
      
   >>   
   >> Nah! If you're going to do the job, do it properly.   
   >>   
   >> If I had the choice between several dozen new hospitals and a fleet of   
   >> new nuclear submarines, I'd want to be equipped to start a nuclear war   
   >> we couldn't survive. Wouldn't you?   
   >   
   >The whole point is that having nuclear armed submarines at sea means   
   >that no-one can attack without potentially suffering a retaliatory   
   >attack. Hospitals are of no use if someone decides to obliterate your   
   >country, knowing that there will be no response.   
   >   
   >While it would be better if no countries had nuclear weapons, while some   
   >potential enemies do, it makes sense to have your own response of last   
   >resort.   
      
      
   The BIG issues for me about Nuclear conflict is it starting accidentally   
   someone getting a bit trigger happy almost happened in 1979 wasn't it?,   
   some Russian bloke queries odd radar returns instead of referring  to   
   higher up the chain, which from what had happened would have provoked a   
   retaliatory strike!..   
      
   Nope 1983!, Stanislav Petrov   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident   
   --   
   Tony Sayer   
      
      
   Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.   
      
   Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)