You said, and I quote, "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war." It wasn't, that's a common misconception. Persistence during war wasn't a design consideration. A separate study into voice-communications by the RAND corporation looked at using packet-switching for persistent during an exchange of nuclear weapons - that's where the misconception comes from. Whether or not the Internet might survive such an exchange is academic, unless you'd like to revise your "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. " to "Besides, the Internet might persist during war".
Love the Satoshi stuff, keep it coming.
Bullshit. You have no way of knowing the real reasons why the Internet came to be. You're just quoting stuff that fits your agenda, trying hard to argue with me on the matter that I do not care about.
I don't care about it that much, either - it's straying well into off-topic. However, you raised it. You - presumably - persist in your claim despite being shown evidence to the contrary. Disprove that evidence, or accept you made a mistake. Incidentally, here's
Charles Herzfeld, ARPA's director at the time discussing why ARPANET was created, what the goals for it were - and weren't. But don't just take his word for it, Google is your friend.
The reason it matters is - you made an appeal to your legendary status. I'm of the opinion that, particularly where matters of money is concerned, accuracy is better than longevity. If you raise a topic it looks pretty shabby trying to deflect criticism by calling other participants "brats", dismissing them because you perceive them to be comparative newbies. Particularly when, in the same post, you repeat a common myth.