> Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources?
Occam's razor. What's likely to be the most likely explanation? That the guy who commissioned ARPANET would know why he commissioned ARPANET, or that some random on the Internet would know better?
That this can or can't be disproved is bollocks, and a cop-out: my statement is clearly falsifiable. If you don't believe that Charles Herzfeld commissioned ARPANET for the reasons he said - you should be able to construct a falsifiable premise of your own.
...and why on Earth would you say something if you didn't care whether it was true or not? Can we infer from your promotion of $5000 that a similar lack of care was involved?
I'm seriously getting bored of you. Not only you seem to know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. You now don't seem to see a difference between reasons to commission something and reasons to actually do something. What are you trying to achieve here anyway? Make me admit that I didn't care to explain deeply enough my reasons to believe that 5k prices are bound to happen soon? Yes I admit it, I didn't care and you cannot make me care more because it is not about convincing the opponents to see the light but it is about seeing who the opponents are, how they think, what's their average intellect is and so on.
Yes, as you state I do know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general (electro-magnetic pulses from nuclear explosions create havoc for electromagnetic communications - pretty much all modern communications). I'm not sure why you're trying to derail this down that way, it really doesn't matter which type of war it is - ARPANET was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal.
Thanks for your admission. I sometimes wish threads were tagged "no analysis or thought here!" - it would make life much easier.