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.
Thanks for your admission. I sometimes wish threads were tagged "no analysis or thought here!" - it would make life much easier.
And don't get kicked in the butt by the door on your way out.
But seriously though, it doesn't take a genius to understand that if military creates something for their own use it is automatically meant to withstand war. It's so obvious that they don't even put it into the reports. And to make matters worse for you, it is outright trivial that a decentralized network of any kind is versatile at times of war. You're just trying to be a smartass by citing offtopic in a hostile way while you could as well as do it without the obvious stench of a saboteur all over the place.
By the way, the Internet is vulnerable to EMPs for the same reason the power grid is vulnerable --- because the civilian infrastructure hasn't been built in way that it would be resistant to electromagnetic pulses. When it comes to that, the Internet is the least of your worries. You will be without power, for months. If that's your argument then it's an outright doomsday argument that should be discarded even faster than a wild claim for 5k prices in the near term future. What crazy theory is next in your back pocket? That bitcoin wouldn't survive a zombie apocalypse? Come on, man, by now you just have to see your fallacy, it's so big and red and in your face.
I won't, don't worry. Though I have to admit I don't have a come back to your last paragraph - partly because I have little idea what you're saying or why it's relevant, but mostly because it's got nothing to do with my argument.
My argument, you will recall, is that the Internet was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal. It had specific design goals, of which warfare-persistence was not one. Charles Herzfeld has stated what the design goals were. All of this is falsifiable: you could disprove Charles Herzfeld, for example, by finding a collaborator prepared to spill the beans.
Your argument currently appears to be "military project implies warfare-persistence" Well, it's possible that the Seabees - the US Navy's "Construction Battalion" - had warfare-persistence as a design goal when they were repairing roads and bridges in the wake of Hurricane Georges. I guess warfare-persistence was certainly a goal when the Pentagon was first built - I don't believe anyone thinks it's a realistic goal for some modern military buildings, but perhaps the administrative buildings are all civilian-designed? Perhaps. The military design things to blow up, they design temporary things, they design things that won't ever be near any battlefield - they design things for all sorts of reasons. Incredibly, they aren't just in the business of waging and surviving war.
I keep coming back to this, but I guess it's the crux of the issue - why would you say something and not care whether it was true or not? Why would you post something on a public forum and then try and deflect any criticism? There's a great discussion to be had around BTC and gold and stores of value, but you seem hostile to any real discussion beyond the usual cheerleading.