🚀 go-pugleaf

In <3r4lq3$rcj@news.cais.com> birdhaex@cais3.cais.com (David Birdsey)
writes: 

>Yes, there is that assumption, although I'd be interested in what
>sources
>you have on defining such leaders as "irrational."  But to be
>"rational"
>in this sense only requires that the actor involved wishes to continue
>in
>existence.  Faced with a choice between tweaking the U.S. on the one
>hand
>by perhaps destroying a city and the end of national existence on the
>other hand from U.S. retailiation, I doubt even Qaddafi (or whatever
>the
>current spelling is) or young Kim would opt for a strike. 

Well, I doubt it too, but not sufficiently so that I would want to
count on it with millions of American lives at stake.  In the grand
scheme of things, a few billion for an intercept system is cheap
insurance.  I tend to prefer relying on hardware (which is somewhat
more predictable than human motivation, particularly in the case of the
individuals mentioned above).  Kind of like, "this house insured by
Smith and Wesson."
-- 
***********************************************************************
*     ____     ___       *     simberg@ix.netcom.com                   
*    / __ \   /__ \      *     76667.3247@compuserve.com               
*   / / / |  //  ||      *     (310) 372-7963 (California)             
*  | /_/ /  //  //       *     (307) 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)           
*   \__ /  //_-/___      *     (307) 733-1391 (Fax)                    
*        _//   / __ \    *                                             
*      / //   / / / |    *                                             
*    ||_//   | /__/ /    *    "My opinions *are* those of my employer" 
*     \_/     \____/     *                                             
*      interglobal       *      "Next year in Orbit"                   
*      space lines       *                                             
***********************************************************************