 | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) I know we've all discussed this before, and I confess that I don't have a clear concept of what's appropriate for whom to possess, but I have I have question about the history of this interpretation. How did the founding fathers feel about (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) I'd refer you to the Federalist Papers for something a bit more authoriative, but my guess would be no, their cutoff seemed to be "man portable" rather than "portable if you have a whole team of horses". Before you ask, that DOES rule out (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Dave Schuler
| | | | | (...) Interesting (and, I note, consistent with your previously stated views). I wonder if they might have considered relative firepower/destructive potential if they'd known what would eventually be man-portable. That's wonder-if question, as (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | | |
