Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:22:12 +0100
The Bookworm said on 13:13/17 Feb 98...

> > Who says you need an ICBM to have a nuke?
>
> Not me! But (you knew there was a but didnt you:)) In the novel they talk
> about the incoming ICBM from the vatican.

I haven't read Black Madonna, so I don't know what kinds of nukes it
refers to. If it explicitly mentions an ICBM, two important questions
arise: 1) Yes, where DO they store them? and 2) Did the author know what
an ICBM really is? :)

> Therefore i was trying to figure out where the Vatican had hidden them.

In that light it makes sense, although I can't really come up with a
believable way for them to own ICBMs without everybody knowing about it,
nor where they would store them in secret. Even owning a nuclear weapon
without a real delivery system will probably be noticed by some or another
intelligence agency and/or the press (rumors will eventually get out, for
example).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
That's just fine.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 04:55:53 -0005
On 18 Feb 98 at 10:22, Gurth wrote:

> The Bookworm said on 13:13/17 Feb 98...
>
> > > Who says you need an ICBM to have a nuke?
> >
> > Not me! But (you knew there was a but didnt you:)) In the novel they talk
> > about the incoming ICBM from the vatican.
>
> I haven't read Black Madonna, so I don't know what kinds of nukes it
> refers to. If it explicitly mentions an ICBM, two important questions
> arise: 1) Yes, where DO they store them? and 2) Did the author know what
> an ICBM really is? :)

In the last part of the novel the Vatican launches a nuke at Leonardo,
who uses some sort of "Star Wars" device to disable it and capture it.
It's pure drek. The authors were Carl Sargent and Marc Gascoigne who from
what I'm given to understand no longer work for FASA <applause>. These
same authors brought us such great source books as the London Sourcebook
and that GM favorite Tir na nOg, immortal elves (too numerous to mention,
but figure them to be behind every major event it human history), and
other great novels such as Nosferatu and Streets of Blood. Did they know
what an ICBM is... frag me if I know. I'm not sure they know what reality
is. </dripping sarcasm off> And if you guess I don't care for this duo,
give yourself a karma point for Smarts.

--
@>->,-`---
Ashelock
o=<======-

GM's Theme: "I am the eye in the sky, looking at you, I can see your lies.
I am the maker of rules, dealing in fools, I can cheat you blind."
Message no. 3
From: William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 12:11:45 +0100
>> I haven't read Black Madonna, so I don't know what kinds of nukes it
>> refers to. If it explicitly mentions an ICBM, two important questions
>> arise: 1) Yes, where DO they store them? and 2) Did the author know what
>> an ICBM really is? :)

I think this is a secondary problem here. The main problem is that Vatican
has nukes which a bit stupid. Why would this nation have such a power, they
just don't have the use for it. IMO, they *use* the armies from different
nations like they did in the past. Why spending money to buy nukes,
installations to use them and men to care for them when you only need to
ask for a nation to launch it for you. Because religion has a great renewal
in SR, it seems more likely that things should be that way.

What I said is naturally in SR game... I don't think Catholic Church could
have use of any nuke.

> In the last part of the novel the Vatican launches a nuke at
Leonardo,
>who uses some sort of "Star Wars" device to disable it and capture it.
>It's pure drek. The authors were Carl Sargent and Marc Gascoigne who from
>what I'm given to understand no longer work for FASA <applause>.

Yep it's pure drek but nope there's no reason to applause. I really like
many of their books.

> These
>same authors brought us such great source books as the London Sourcebook
>and that GM favorite Tir na nOg, immortal elves (too numerous to mention,
>but figure them to be behind every major event it human history), and
>other great novels such as Nosferatu and Streets of Blood. Did they know
>what an ICBM is... frag me if I know. I'm not sure they know what reality
>is. </dripping sarcasm off> And if you guess I don't care for this duo,
>give yourself a karma point for Smarts.

it's YO. IMO, Tir Na Nog was really good (I thought it was from Nigel
Finley, the writer I prefered). I didn't read Nosferatu but I liked Streets
of blood a lot, especially the end...
As for talking about reality :
* in a game !
* setting in the future !
* while talking about religion as a political/economic power, which only
shows you listened well your teachers but never read a text from medieval
time or any theologic study...

I don't want to be harsh but I'm just getting bored of all these mediatic
ideology preventing people from thinking while they think they are thinking.
I don't think I'm totally right and I don't like when others think they
are. :)


Cobra.

E-mail adress : wgallas@*****.fr
Quote : "Never trust an elf"
Message no. 4
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 05:49:15 -0700
At 12:11 PM 2/18/98 +0100, you wrote:

>> In the last part of the novel the Vatican launches a nuke at
>Leonardo,
>>who uses some sort of "Star Wars" device to disable it and capture it.
>>It's pure drek. The authors were Carl Sargent and Marc Gascoigne who from
>>what I'm given to understand no longer work for FASA <applause>.
>
>Yep it's pure drek but nope there's no reason to applause. I really like
>many of their books.

So there's no reason for you to applause. But Ash didn't like the books,
so he has reason to.

>it's YO. IMO, Tir Na Nog was really good (I thought it was from Nigel
>Finley, the writer I prefered). I didn't read Nosferatu but I liked Streets
>of blood a lot, especially the end...
>As for talking about reality :
>* in a game !

Uh.. so if reality doesn't matter in the game, I suppose pigs can fly in
Shadowrun?

>* setting in the future !

So because it's in the future, we don't need to hold true to facts we know
to be true now?

>I don't want to be harsh but I'm just getting bored of all these mediatic
>ideology preventing people from thinking while they think they are thinking.
>I don't think I'm totally right and I don't like when others think they
>are. :)

Preventing you from thinking?
And since what Ash mostly stated was Opinions, they ARE totally right, in
his mind.

> Quote : "Never trust an elf"

Boy, original.

-Adam
"Boy, I hate the technolo... aww, fuck it."

-
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ AdamJ@******** \ fro@***.ab.ca
The Shadowrun Archive Co-Maintainer: http://www.interware.it/shadowrun
Message no. 5
From: William Gallas <wgallas@*****.FR>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 14:11:42 +0100
>>As for talking about reality :
>>* in a game !
>Uh.. so if reality doesn't matter in the game, I suppose pigs can fly in
>Shadowrun?

Yep. Or Church has nukes... :)

>>* setting in the future !
>So because it's in the future, we don't need to hold true to facts we know
>to be true now?

As 'magic doesn't exist' for exemple ?

>>I don't want to be harsh but I'm just getting bored of all these mediatic
>>ideology preventing people from thinking while they think they are thinking.
>>I don't think I'm totally right and I don't like when others think they
>>are. :)
>
>Preventing you from thinking?
>And since what Ash mostly stated was Opinions, they ARE totally right, in
>his mind.

Yep. As do other opinions...

>> Quote : "Never trust an elf"
>
>Boy, original.

Never meant to.

>-Adam
>"Boy, I hate the technolo... aww, fuck it."

Yours is so better ! :)


Cobra.

E-mail adress : wgallas@*****.fr
Quote : "Never trust an elf"
Message no. 6
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:25:55 EST
In a message dated 98-02-18 07:48:47 EST, fro@***.AB.CA writes:

> Uh.. so if reality doesn't matter in the game, I suppose pigs can fly in
> Shadowrun?

Adam, QUICK!!! GET DOWN!!! (strange rushing of air passes overhead
accompanied by ... an OINK!!) Damn it Adam, didn't you see the statistics on
the "Elemental Swine?". Gosh darn it all, here's the "Sky Swine" for
ya...

B (4) Q (3) S (9) C (4- cuz everyone luvs 'em so) I (yeah right, defying
gravity??) W (30 - LOTS of concentration to do that ya know..) E ((6)) M
(Innate) R (5****)

Known Abilities : Defy Gravity (Self), Induce Hallucinations (Global), Sonic
Projection (OINK!!!), Immunity to Normal Weapons and Dripping Sarcasm, Noxious
Breath (well, it doesn't come out the right end...)

> >* setting in the future !
>
> So because it's in the future, we don't need to hold true to facts we know
> to be true now?

That would all depend of course. Personally, I don't see us having much of a
future any more, so it all becomes relative to me.

> >I don't want to be harsh but I'm just getting bored of all these mediatic
> >ideology preventing people from thinking while they think they are
thinking.
>
> >I don't think I'm totally right and I don't like when others think they
> >are. :)
>
> Preventing you from thinking?

Hey, it is what the guy said.

> And since what Ash mostly stated was Opinions, they ARE totally right, in
> his mind.
>
> > Quote : "Never trust an elf"
>
> Boy, original.
> -Adam

Adam, isn't there a "5th Reason" coming around . 'Required'???
-K
Message no. 7
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 09:18:42 EST
In a message dated 98-02-18 04:28:02 EST, you write:

> In that light it makes sense, although I can't really come up with a
> believable way for them to own ICBMs without everybody knowing about it,
> nor where they would store them in secret. Even owning a nuclear weapon
> without a real delivery system will probably be noticed by some or another
> intelligence agency and/or the press (rumors will eventually get out, for
> example).

True, a lot of the nations in the world now that the Vatican have nukes ...
and do the nukes get actively noted in the press ... no, the press would not
do so ... for a couple of reasons ... 1) So as not to cause a panic ... 2)
Something everybody knows already ... 3) No one wants the NOJ coming after
them ... 4) Does the US press keep tabs on nukes in the US arsenal ? no ...
5) as for delivery systems ... when you see a tomahawk missile launching
system remember this, until the bomb inside goes off you will not know if it
was a nuke or not ...

Mike
Message no. 8
From: "David R. Lowe" <dlowe@****.COM>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 08:06:34 -0800
At 10:22 AM +0100 2/18/98, Gurth wrote:

>In that light it makes sense, although I can't really come up with a
>believable way for them to own ICBMs without everybody knowing about it,
>nor where they would store them in secret. Even owning a nuclear weapon
>without a real delivery system will probably be noticed by some or another
>intelligence agency and/or the press (rumors will eventually get out, for
>example).
>

Good point. Also, one of the main advantages about owning an ICBM, is that
everyone knows you have an ICBM. In the modern age (1960-90's) the main
point about using nuclear weapons is deterrent. You don't need to use them,
just let everyone else know you have them and are willing to use them.

A secret nuclear weapon isn't much of a deterrent.

D.

David R. Lowe (dlowe@*********.com)
Photography/Design
http://www.lowephoto.com.

"The logic of worldly sucess rests on a fallacy: the strange error that our
perfection depends upon the thought and opinions and applause of other men."

-Thomas Merton
Message no. 9
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 17:11:41 +0000
Airwisp wrote:
> True, a lot of the nations in the world know that the Vatican have nukes ...
> and do the nukes get actively noted in the press ... no, the press would not
> do so ... for a couple of reasons ...
> 1) So as not to cause a panic ...

Considering the level of concern in the modern press, and how it is,
presumably, a lot less in the SR universe, that one is not too
likely. In addition, since most would not expect the vatican to use
such a weapon (hmmmm..... scratch that. Relatively small, ideological
groups are the most likely to use nukes - but also the least likely
to get one.).

> 2) Something everybody knows already ...
Still would make for ok news in a calm news season. And if it was
something everybody knew it wouldn't be much of a secret, now would
it? :)


> 3) No one wants the NOJ coming after them ...
Hm.. why would the NOJ 'go after' news agencies for that? Or, to be
more accurate, why would they want to generate the bad press that
would give? It would be potenitally a *lot* more damaging than
speculations wether the Vatican had nukes, and lead to pre-20th
century situations where the OJ was banned from most nations. The
press as a whole is far more powerful than any agency like the NOJ,
CIA, etc, *perhaps* except the big 8. Also, the press is not a
uniform body, and even if some might be deterred from airing some
news, deterring all would be a lot harder, and beyond anyone. As for
killing whatever journalist who brought the news.. why? Vengeance?
Lending credibility to the story? They would put a lot of resources
into keeping it hidden, but once it was found, any further action
would only be damaging.


> 4) Does the US press keep tabs on nukes in the US arsenal ? no ...

Well, not to my knowledge. But if you buy a month's supply of
newspapers, it's bound to be mentioned some place or other. And
there's a difference between the existence of the US arsenal, and
its exact deployment. Its existence is common knowledge, while its
exact deployment is of little interest to the common press, and not
something that can fit in a column or two, so neither is likely to
be a common subject... neither of which holds true for the vatican's
alleged nuclear arsenal. Besides, returning to the example of the US
arsenal, there is specialized publications that give detailed
information on the number and deployment of US (and other) forces.
The NATO publication 'The Balance of Power', for instance.

<plug>
Information on ordering is available at www.nato.int. It's sold at
cost and not for profit, and so is fairly cheap. Also check your
local Atlantic Treaty Association, which is likely to have a
translated version available for distribution.
</plug>

> 5) as for delivery systems ... when you see a tomahawk missile launching
> system remember this, until the bomb inside goes off you will not know if it
> was a nuke or not ...

Very true. But a tomahawk isn't an ICBM. (Inter Continental Ballistic
Missile - lots larger than cruise missiles.). To my knowledge, all
ICBM's carry nuclear warheads. They usually carry several. If someone
had ICBM's they could reasonably be expected to be nuclear.

I am not quite sure what level of effort would be needed to get a
working, effective ICBM. I know that today, only two countries has
ICBM's*. I also know that a lot of countries would like that power,
but doesn't have it, and not for lack of trying. Anyone care to
extrapolate and speculate a little?

I'd think they'd either be common as dirt, or as unavailable then as
today. (Most probably something in between). In the first case, I'd
still question** wether the vatican has them (they have no military
today, and no plausible reason to get one.), and in the second case,
they would certainly not have one.

*That is, I know that USA and Russia has them. I am not sure of
Ukraine, France, Germany and Britain. Those countries has nukes, but
I do not think they have ICBM's because they do not need that range.
Wether they do isn't really important for the discussion anyway, but
could be enlightening.

** That I question it doesn't, of course, mean that I do not think
anyone should play SR according to what I think compared to what SR
says. It just means that I'll not include that as canon in the local
game.
--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 10
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:01:32 +0100
Mike Bobroff said on 9:18/18 Feb 98...

> > In that light it makes sense, although I can't really come up with a
> > believable way for them to own ICBMs without everybody knowing about it,
> > nor where they would store them in secret. Even owning a nuclear weapon
> > without a real delivery system will probably be noticed by some or another
> > intelligence agency and/or the press (rumors will eventually get out, for
> > example).
>
> True, a lot of the nations in the world now that the Vatican have nukes ...
> and do the nukes get actively noted in the press ... no, the press would not
> do so ... for a couple of reasons ... 1) So as not to cause a panic ...

Yeah, right. If it makes a good story, they'll tell their version of it.
And if that causes a panic, so much the better because there are a few
stories in that panic too.

> 2) Something everybody knows already ...

It's impossible that "everybody knows already" since forever. At some
point in time, it has to _become_ known, and at that time I can see
articles in anything from specialist magazines only (if it's not deemed
important by the major papers and TV news channels) to every newspaper
and TV station on earth (if they think it is important).

> 4) Does the US press keep tabs on nukes in the US arsenal ? no ...

Only because there's nothing new and interesting to report. If it were
found out that the US has 10 times as many nukes as they've always
claimed, there would be reports about it. Same here: "Did you hear the
Vatican has nukes?" "No, where did you get that? I want a copy of that
article!"

> 5) as for delivery systems ... when you see a tomahawk missile launching
> system remember this, until the bomb inside goes off you will not know
> if it was a nuke or not ...

What are you trying to say here? That it might only be a rumor and the
Vatican's alledged nuclear weapons are "only" normal warheads? In that
case, I don't see why you should bother with an ICBM...

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
That's just fine.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 11
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 22:01:33 +0100
David R. Lowe said on 8:06/18 Feb 98...

> A secret nuclear weapon isn't much of a deterrent.

Which only leaves the option of using it without anybody expecting you to,
and that has a good chance of leading to a global nuclear war as everybody
assumes it's one of the known nuke-equipped enemies who launched the
weapon, and wants to retaliate before they become the next target.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html - UIN5044116
That's just fine.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: Ashlocke <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 21:50:39 -0005
On 18 Feb 98 at 22:01, Gurth wrote:

> Mike Bobroff said on 9:18/18 Feb 98...
>
> >
> > True, a lot of the nations in the world now that the Vatican have nukes ...
> > and do the nukes get actively noted in the press ... no, the press would not
> > do so ... for a couple of reasons ... 1) So as not to cause a panic ...
>
> Yeah, right. If it makes a good story, they'll tell their version of it.
> And if that causes a panic, so much the better because there are a few
> stories in that panic too.

I've often noted the behavioral resemblance between reporters and
vultures. Reporters are rarely humanitarians. Reports at major events
have been compared to sharks in a feeding frenzy. Lets not forget that
not long ago too persistent reporters played a role in the death of a dear
lady. As Gurth said... so much the better if it causes a panic, riots are
big news.

>
> > 4) Does the US press keep tabs on nukes in the US arsenal ? no ...
>
> Only because there's nothing new and interesting to report. If it were
> found out that the US has 10 times as many nukes as they've always
> claimed, there would be reports about it. Same here: "Did you hear the
> Vatican has nukes?" "No, where did you get that? I want a copy of that
> article!"

Actually from time to time yes, the US media does. Whenever a nuke gets
moved by rail from one location to another it's big news, lots of
protestors, lots of coverage. The only time the military gets annoyed is
when someone actually lays down on the tracks in front of the train and
has to be forcibly removed.

>
> > 5) as for delivery systems ... when you see a tomahawk missile launching
> > system remember this, until the bomb inside goes off you will not know
> > if it was a nuke or not ...
>
> What are you trying to say here? That it might only be a rumor and the
> Vatican's alledged nuclear weapons are "only" normal warheads? In that
> case, I don't see why you should bother with an ICBM...

They'll know it's a nuke long before. TEAL Ruby for example. I probably
shouldn't be discussing this but what the frag. TEAL Ruby is specialized
kind of spy satelitte. It follows and eliptical polar orbit that lets it
cover the entire planet. This satellite was designed to look for nukes
among other things. It can detect the radiation trace of even the
smallest sub tactical nukes 50ft underground. The satellite was desigedn
as part of satellite intelligence program created by the DOD (Dept. of
Defense) to monitor the movements of nukes, mainly in Russia. Most
people have forgotten the SALT II talks from over decade ago. It was a
nuclear disarmament agreement between the US and Russia. Congress never
ratified the agreement though and it died on capital hill. That ticked
off a lot of people, mainly because they didn't understand why Congress
wouldn't ratify it. At the time we had no way to verify Soviet compliance
with the treaty. Now we do and in recent years there have been
disarmament agreements. The other part of this satelite intelligence
program was HALO (High Altitude Large Optics). HALO sits in
geo-syncronious orbit at roughly 32,000 miles up. It's job was to track
military movement and provide additional information that, when combined
with TEAL Ruby, would give the US a pretty complete estimate of Soviet
military strength and positioning. HALO is known to have at least a
2" ground resolution, and possibly a 1" resolution. What that means is
that from 32,000 miles up it could read a newspaper headline, a license
plate, or the serial numbers on a tank or missile (which was what they
wanted). Course it also gets decent pictures of nude sunbathers (or would
that be indecent). Smile, big brother is watching you.

Could the Vatican have nukes...sure... buy direct from Soviet
warehouses... they're having a special this week. Would it be a secret,
very, very doubtful. So that leaves two questions. What would be the
reaction of the rest of the world? (Christians in particular... I mean
the image of the Pope with nukes just work....) Second, what exactly
would the Vatican want them for?
--
@>->,-`---
Ashelock
o=<======-

GM's Theme: "I am the eye in the sky, looking at you, I can see your lies.
I am the maker of rules, dealing in fools, I can cheat you blind."
Message no. 13
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 07:52:56 -0700
Ashlocke wrote:
/
/ Could the Vatican have nukes...sure... buy direct from Soviet
/ warehouses... they're having a special this week. Would it be a secret,
/ very, very doubtful. So that leaves two questions.

[snip first question]

/ Second, what exactly would the Vatican want them for?

Oh, that's easy. As soon as the number of good souls exceed the
number of neutral and evil souls the Vatican lights off their nukes
which brings about the apocolyps. And since their's a greater number
of good souls God wins the game of life.

Didn't you know that Winternight(?) and the Vatican are the same thing?

:)

-David
--
"By the way, this may look like a slab of liver
but it's an external brain pack."
- Ratbert
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 14
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:13:36 +1000
David Buehrer writes:
>/ Second, what exactly would the Vatican want them for?
>
>Oh, that's easy. As soon as the number of good souls exceed the
>number of neutral and evil souls the Vatican lights off their nukes
>which brings about the apocolyps. And since their's a greater number
>of good souls God wins the game of life.


That makes me rest easier... David has now confirmed that the Vatican will
not light off their nukes for at least another thousand or so years... (if
ever) :)

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 15
From: Scott <stu5609@*****.ATU.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 04:54:43 -0600
David Buehrer writes:
>/ Second, what exactly would the Vatican want them for?
>
>Oh, that's easy. As soon as the number of good souls exceed the
>number of neutral and evil souls the Vatican lights off their nukes
>which brings about the apocolyps. And since their's a greater number
>of good souls God wins the game of life.

Unfortunately, it is obvious that Mr. Buehrer hasn't attended Mass in a
while. The Vatican would not only have no use for nukes (they have the
Swiss to take care of them) but absolutely no conceivable excuse for
using them. Perhaps the 750 million Catholics in the Awakened world
would not appreciate the Vatican going anti-peace. I don't suspect the
400 million active ones would consider going against 2000 years of
practice and I don't really imagine the Pope doing so either.

Scott Kelley
Message no. 16
From: Adam J <fro@***.AB.CA>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:14:40 -0700
At 04:54 20/02/98 -0600, you wrote:

<Snippage>

>Unfortunately, it is obvious that Mr. Buehrer hasn't attended Mass in a
>while. The Vatican would not only have no use for nukes (they have the
>Swiss to take care of them) but absolutely no conceivable excuse for
>using them. Perhaps the 750 million Catholics in the Awakened world
>would not appreciate the Vatican going anti-peace. I don't suspect the
>400 million active ones would consider going against 2000 years of
>practice and I don't really imagine the Pope doing so either.

Err.. don't take it so seriously. Dave was joking, I believe.

BTW, your reply-to is over-riding the lists.

-Adam J
Mass? About 65KG..
-
http://shadowrun.home.ml.org \ TSS Productions \ The Shadowrun Supplemental
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader \ AdamJ@******** \ fro@***.ab.ca
The Shadowrun Archive Co-Maintainer: http://www.interware.it/shadowrun
Message no. 17
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 20:00:08 -0700
Adam J wrote:
/
/ At 04:54 20/02/98 -0600, you wrote:
/
/ <Snippage>
/
/ >Unfortunately, it is obvious that Mr. Buehrer hasn't attended Mass in a
/ >while. The Vatican would not only have no use for nukes (they have the
/ >Swiss to take care of them) but absolutely no conceivable excuse for
/ >using them. Perhaps the 750 million Catholics in the Awakened world
/ >would not appreciate the Vatican going anti-peace. I don't suspect the
/ >400 million active ones would consider going against 2000 years of
/ >practice and I don't really imagine the Pope doing so either.
/
/ Err.. don't take it so seriously. Dave was joking, I believe.

Yes, I was joking. It was meant to be tongue in cheek. Sorry if I
offended.

-David
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 18
From: "J. Keith Henry" <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:14:40 EST
In a message dated 98-02-19 09:52:36 EST, dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG writes:

> Didn't you know that Winternight(?) and the Vatican are the same thing?
>
> :)
>
> -David
>
Actually David ... no, I won't say it...

-K
Message no. 19
From: Scott <stu5609@*****.ATU.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 12:45:11 -0600
David Buehrer wrote:
>
> Adam J wrote:
> /
> / At 04:54 20/02/98 -0600, you wrote:
> /
> / <Snippage>
> /
> / >Unfortunately, it is obvious that Mr. Buehrer hasn't attended Mass in a
> / >while. The Vatican would not only have no use for nukes (they have the
> / >Swiss to take care of them) but absolutely no conceivable excuse for
> / >using them. Perhaps the 750 million Catholics in the Awakened world
> / >would not appreciate the Vatican going anti-peace. I don't suspect the
> / >400 million active ones would consider going against 2000 years of
> / >practice and I don't really imagine the Pope doing so either.
> /
> / Err.. don't take it so seriously. Dave was joking, I believe.
>
> Yes, I was joking. It was meant to be tongue in cheek. Sorry if I
> offended.
>
> -David
> --
> http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
You didn't really... I was just making a point about the discussion. I
think it's ridiculous. Sorry if I came off rude. :)
Message no. 20
From: --=cHipHeaD=-- <chiphead@****.COM>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 20:27:37 -0500
> David Buehrer writes:
> >/ Second, what exactly would the Vatican want them for?
> >
> >Oh, that's easy. As soon as the number of good souls exceed the
> >number of neutral and evil souls the Vatican lights off their nukes
> >which brings about the apocolyps. And since their's a greater number
> >of good souls God wins the game of life.
>
> Unfortunately, it is obvious that Mr. Buehrer hasn't attended Mass in a
> while. The Vatican would not only have no use for nukes (they have the
> Swiss to take care of them) but absolutely no conceivable excuse for
> using them. Perhaps the 750 million Catholics in the Awakened world
> would not appreciate the Vatican going anti-peace. I don't suspect the
> 400 million active ones would consider going against 2000 years of
> practice and I don't really imagine the Pope doing so either.
>
> Scott Kelley

Ok, but don't forget the Protestant movement during the middle ages.
Who's to say that some anarchic (ok so maybe im at a temporary lose for
words) system won't be established in place of the catholic church in the
near future? The level of liberalism in the world is probably expanding to
fast for them to keep up anyway. (ps- I'm not here to offend ANYBODY, so
SCREW YOU IF I did, get your head out of your ass and get off the net. Oh
and have a nice day.)

-=cHipHead=-

---_+-----------_____+++__+_+__-----------
GeeK c0de? I doNt need no stinking geeK ©()d¢
-___+++_+_+______+_------++--------------

SR soon pOPulating:

http://www.jax-inter.net/user/snakeyes
Message no. 21
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: the Vatican's nukes
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:18:43 -0500
[much discussion of the use of nukes by the Vatican snipped]

FWIW, my explaination of the "Vatican nuke" from Black Madonna is in my
upcoming novel Technobabel, wherein many of Leonardo's actions are...
re-examined.

Steve K.
Message no. 22
From: Scott <stu5609@*****.ATU.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Vatican's nukes
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 00:38:06 -0600
--=cHipHeaD=-- wrote:

>
> Ok, but don't forget the Protestant movement during the middle ages.
> Who's to say that some anarchic (ok so maybe im at a temporary lose for
> words) system won't be established in place of the catholic church in the
> near future? The level of liberalism in the world is probably expanding to
> fast for them to keep up anyway. (ps- I'm not here to offend ANYBODY, so
> SCREW YOU IF I did, get your head out of your ass and get off the net. Oh
> and have a nice day.)
>
> -=cHipHead=-
>
> ---_+-----------_____+++__+_+__-----------
> GeeK c0de? I doNt need no stinking geeK )()d"
> -___+++_+_+______+_------++--------------
>
> SR soon pOPulating:
>
> http://www.jax-inter.net/user/snakeyes

The reason an ultra-liberalist anarchic group wouldn't replace the
church is because of the immense conservative
backbone of human society. It has been a constant throughout the whole
of written history (no matter who's you
look at, BTW) that a massive segment of the population will fall into an
ultra-conservative body and the rest
will split along various splinters. The reasoning is quite simple, man
fears what he does not know. No matter
what you believe, you believe in something. The Church has given the
human race a safety rope whenever the going
gets theoretically edgey. Through 2000 years of war and political
division, the Church has held its place in out
society because it gives hope. I would suggest that after the awakening
the Church would pull together under an
even more orthodox strictures just to try and keep the population
together. Politically, (if we must speak this
way of a religious body) the collection of nukes would be absolute
suicide as the Church body would scramble in fear
from its new, liberal leadership. The church would desolve and that
would be the end of society as we know it as
millions lost faith in everything their families had passed down for
centuries. Though I'm not the pope, I can
easily see many more appealing options if I were going to get into the
power game.
Message no. 23
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: the Vatican's nukes
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:18:20 EST
> FWIW, my explaination of the "Vatican nuke" from Black Madonna is in
> my upcoming novel Technobabel, wherein many of Leonardo's actions
> are... re-examined.

Which, in my opinion is a good thing. FASA had to do SOMETHING about
that atrocity of a novel.

-=SwiftOne=-
I'm not opinionated, I'm just right
Message no. 24
From: Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject: Re: the Vatican's nukes
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 16:36:50 -0500
At 10:18 AM 2/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>[much discussion of the use of nukes by the Vatican snipped]
>
>FWIW, my explanation of the "Vatican nuke" from Black Madonna is in my
>upcoming novel Technobabel, wherein many of Leonardo's actions are...
>re-examined.
>
>Steve K.
>

Please please tell me that Leonardo has been "de-munchkined!"

While I didn't despise Black Madonna like some people here did, I really
found the optical cyberdeck thingie and the arrangement with Renraku really
offensive and against what Dowd and Mulvihill and the rest of the gang
wanted for Shadowrun.

So please tell us that those things have been toned down!

Erik J.
Message no. 25
From: The Bookworm <Thomas.M.Price@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: the Vatican's nukes
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 15:44:06 -0600
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Steve Kenson wrote:

> [much discussion of the use of nukes by the Vatican snipped]
> FWIW, my explaination of the "Vatican nuke" from Black Madonna is in my
> upcoming novel Technobabel, wherein many of Leonardo's actions are...
> re-examined.

Bah ruin all our fun:). Can you tell us if we were close? BTW when
should the novel ship? *eagerly awaits another SR book to read*

Thomas Price
aka The Bookworm
thomas.m.price@*******.edu
tmprice@***********.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about The Vatican's nukes, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!