WHOOPS -- I just re-read my original note.
Mea culpa; Harry, you parsed it right, I said it wrong.
I said it backwards: I meant to say:
"Since WWII ended, in every war I can think of, at least one party was
*not* nuclear armed, except the conflict between India and Pakistan..."
I should avoid negatives, they're too easy to mess up.
On 11-08-06 03:36 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-08-06 02:56 PM, Harry Veeder wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen A. Lawrence<sa...@pobox.com>
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2011 1:44:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[Political OT]: Global negative income tax
Since WWII ended, the only wars I can think of in
which at least one party was *not* nuclear armed were between India
and Pakistan
-- and they were serious nail-biters, which scared just about all
rational folk
on the planet.
what about the Iran/Irag war and the numerous wars in Africa?
Did you mis-parse my negative construct?
Iraq, Iran, and nearly all parties in Africa are *not* nuclear armed.
All the conflicts to which you refer had at least one party which was
*not* nuclear armed.
It's just too dangerous to go to war if both parties have the bomb.
Hence, the Pax Atomica, which kept the peace between Russia and the
United States for decades, during which they shoved each other around
in other ways, vying for the title of Globally Dominant Power. In the
pre-atomic age, there would have been a WWIII coming hard on the heels
of WWII, as the US and USSR slugged it out for the championship.
