At 11:27 PM 8/16/97 -0400, you wrote:

>        For instance, if a man runs into a bank with a gun and threatens to
>rob it, and I take out a gun and show him that I have it, and he then runs
>out of the bank, MOST people would agree that he probably ran out when he
>saw that I had comparable armament and that he was taking a much more
>substantial risk than if he were challenging an unarmed group of people.

Hey Sean wakeup,

The unfortuanate fact is history show that when people/armies have
comparable armaments - they use em, seems to make no difference. For
most hothead robbers - you show em a gun and they'll try and shoot
you first - armed guards don't stop ALL robberies by stupid people.

There are several reasons we didn't have WW3 (so far) mainly commercial
but, we NOW have more danger of WW3 scenario BECAUSE of failing systems,
this would not be the case if we didn't STILL have nuclear weapons.

May I suggest that such a discussion you send it private to Robert Lunn
and not to the piclist...

If you really need to reply to me - please make it private.

Rgds

Mike
Perth, Western Australia