Well no. Not sure how you got that bizarre idea, I still hold to the quaint notion that Charles Herzfeld's not an idiot. Anyway, what was your answer to my question? Have you now given up on the argument that everything the military designed was implicitly designed with warfare-persistence as a goal?
Too bad, then we have nothing to discuss. You clearly and blindly believe in your sources and I clearly and blindly keep saying that there is no way of knowing for neither you nor me what were the real reasons behind the inception of the Internet. And you have to agree with that, there's simply no other way. Well, there are ways, but those ways are reserved for morons. For example, you could insist that a paper trail and a confession of some key participant is always guaranteed to be 100% truth. But that's obviously a fallacy, don't you think?
What I do agree on, is that there's a theory that the Internet might not have been designed to survive a nuclear war. Which isn't a far fetched theory because there are not many inventions designed to survive a nuclear war anyway. But when it comes conventional wars where central units of command are the first bombing targets, it becomes very obvious that the Internet is tactically an ingenious invention. Do you honestly believe that the military IT guys sitting around the table putting the first draft of the Internet on paper didn't think of that? You think a bunch of morons designed the Internet? And it was a mere accident that the Internet happened to have all the traits necessary for being resilient to attacks? (these were rhetoric questions, you don't have to answer those, if you do you will only show your stupidity)