Request for topic death on Cold War history (was "RE: Every incident is an opportunity")

Mon Feb 12 23:41:07 UTC 2007

Come on guys... Some more originality please... Internet--->Al-Qaeda
fundraising---->Afghanistan--->USSR vs. US---->Cold war---->
Arpanet---> Internet.

Vicious cycle.

-mike

On 2/12/07, Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Causality? WW2=>nukes, cold war=>arpanet=>internet, surely?
>
>
> On 2/12/07, micky coughes <coughes at gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, let's see.
> >
> > Nukes => cold war => arpanet => internet
> >
> > Yup, looks ok.
> >
> > On 2/12/07, Olsen, Jason <jolsen at devry.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Of course, but the point was the goal of that targetting. The
> > > > US public by and large believed, and seems to still believe
> > >        [snip]
> > > > If anniliation is the goal than it's of no importance, just
> > > > bomb the densest population centers.
> > >
> > > To borrow from snarky comments past:
> > >
> > > Unless Vendor C has introduced a "no nuclear-apocalpyse" command that I
> > > need to enable in IOS, it seems that this thread has wandered far from
> > > the flock and subsequently lost most any relevance to the listserv
> > > and/or topic that spawned it.  Cold War strategy is fascinating and all
> > > (I do mean that in a non-snarky way) but does it really belong on NANOG
> > > after it has seemingly dropped any pretense of being an analogy for
> > > anything list-relevant?
> > >
> > > -Feren
> > > Sr Network Engineer
> > > DeVry University
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>