[ExI] better than Google

[William Flynn Wallace]

Well is there anything between nuclear and the conventional bombs?  It
would be nice, in a gruesome kind of way, to have bombs capable of killing
the same number of whatever as nuclear ones but no radiation.  Has a total,
all out war, sparing nothing, been fought in modern times?  All those
little piddly wars between FRance and Britain were largely fought with
mercenaries.  Why didn't they put every man who could carry a weapon into
the wars?  That would be a very very short war.  But no, they fought
limited wars, and mostly nobody won.  bill w

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:36 PM spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> > *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
> *Subject:* [ExI] better than Google
>
>
>
> You guys and gals.  What I want to know is whatever happened to the
> neutron bomb?  Wasn't it supposed to kill people but leave buildings
> intact?  Maybe it was really dirty, radiation-wise.   bill w
>
>
>
>
>
> BillW, it was nearly useless as a weapon.  The ideal weapon would do the
> opposite: wreck the equipment and leave the people intact.  That’s why we
> hear so much more about the EMP, which wrecks the communications, the
> computers, the electrical infrastructure, the engines and such, but the
> people don’t even notice until their solitaire game won’t turn on.  Then
> FaceBook is gone, and oh dear, they realize they just lost World War 4.
>
>
>
> spike
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200602/45401481/attachment.htm>