civil disobedience is disobeying individual government laws whereas revolution is the overthrow of a government by its citizens so you can see that the apostles engaged in disobeyed laws at times when they were told not to preach Jesus, and they were executed for disobeying those laws, but the early church did not involve itself in revolution. That doesn't mean that revolution is never justified, but it just shows you there's a big difference between civil disobedience, disobeying individual government laws, and revolution, the actual overthrow of a government by its citizens. So let's talk about civil disobedience, disobeying individual government laws. Well, God commands us to submit to the governing authorities. We just saw that in Romans 13, 1-7. Jesus, they asked Jesus in Mark 12, 13 and 17, And Jesus said, whose image is on this coin? And they said, Caesar's. And he said, well, give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. So, when Jesus said, give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's, you have Jesus simultaneously teaching submission He's also giving us a basis for civil disobedience. Why am I saying that? Because he said, well look, he said, give to Caesar, the human leader, what is Caesar's. But give to God what belongs to God. You see, it's implied there that if Caesar demands what belongs to God, you say no. Civil disobedience. You don't say Caesar is Lord. So even though Jesus is saying pay your taxes, it's only because that's due to Caesar. When we talk about when Caesar asked for worship, it's time for civil disobedience. And we see many examples of this. in the scripture. But first let me talk about Francis Schaeffer in his Christian Manifesto was way too vague when he said, yeah, you can, you know, some would say, no, we must submit even to the evil laws of Hitler or whatever. It's never right to have civil disobedience. And that would be kind of like the Amish or Mennonite type view to a certain degree. Francis Schaeffer said, when the government permits evil, you can start disobeying their laws. It's kind of like, what? When the government permits evil in one area, does that mean you can disobey good laws in other areas? I mean, that's just way too vague. It's almost like Schaeffer saying, when the government permits evil, it ceases to be. And he, in fact, even implies that when he goes to Rutherford's work and kind of implies that the government is no longer a legitimate entity and the problem is no human government is going to be perfect. Where do you draw that line? So it's just kind of too vague there. Geisler I think is too strict. It's only when the government commands evil. So Geisler would say when it comes to abortion permits abortion. And so what we do on that, Geisler would say, we ourselves don't get abortions, and then we use legal means to protest abortions. But it would only be if the government commands, requires abortions, that we would have the right for civil disobedience there. So Norman Geiser is opposed to Operation Rescue when they would break a good command like thou shalt not trespass. But when the government is saying thou shalt not trespass on taxpayer-paid sidewalks in front of a pro-abortion clinic, and Geiser is saying no, you're not allowed to civil disobedience. I would agree with Schaefer on that point that if we paid for those sidewalks... I'll be honest with you, I haven't felt led to get arrested protesting abortion at least up to this point. I've got some Roman Catholic relatives who have been arrested for protesting abortion and all they did was refuse to get off of public taxpayer So I think Geisler is being just a little bit too extreme in our submission to government. And I think Schaefer is being a little bit too extreme in our ability to commit civil disobedience. And I mean, it would almost be like, I mean, Peter's in prison or preaching the gospel, when the angel sets them free, it almost makes you wonder, well, maybe I shouldn't leave, because, you know, there's a law about you're not supposed to escape from prison, and that's a good law. So, I think sometimes, sometimes when the government is engaged in evil, and trying to force you to do evil in some areas, there might be a little bit of blurring. You might have to use civil disobedience to obey, to disobey even a good law at times. But I just don't like Schaeffer implying that once the government permits evil, you gotta green light civil disobedience, whatever. And Schaeffer really didn't mean that, but he sure worded it that way in his Christian Manifesto. And Geisler's like, only, you know, it'd be like permits you to rape as long as it's on your own property. Okay? Well, no trespassing laws are good. Private property laws are good laws. But if I have to trespass to save the life of a lady from being raped, I'm going to disobey. You know, I think it's Geisler's greater good, you know, you get an exemption from obeying the lesser command by obeying the greater command. So, my own view, when a government command conflicts with God's command, we'll obey God and disobey the government. It's kind of like greater absolutism, the greater good view, but it's basically No matter what way you spell it out, whether it's greater good perspective or my own unqualified minimal absolutism, the key is that our submission to God is higher than our submission to human government. So God says, submit to the governing authorities, and God says, submit to me. Oh, well, wait a minute, I can't submit to you, Lord, because I've got to submit to the government here. It's like, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. The top man in my chain of command, well, actually, is the Triton god. So if the Nazis are, you know, if you're in the German army and the Nazis are commanding you to kill an innocent Jewish person, Well, God commanded you to submit to the governing authorities, but God said thou shalt not commit murder, and your submission to God is higher than your submission to a corrupt regime. So my view is when a government command conflicts with God's command, we are to obey God and disobey the government. You have the Hebrew midwives in Egypt, they disobey Pharaoh. Pharaoh said when the baby is born, you're to take the Jewish baby and throw it in the Nile and kill the baby and they lied and said these Hebrew ladies are so strong they were having their babies before we even get there. When Rahab the harlot, she refused to submit to the Canaanite governing authorities and lied to them to save the innocent lives of two Jewish wives and God commends her as he does the Hebrew midwives throughout the scriptures. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel chapter 3 they refused to bow down before Nebuchadnezzar's statue so they were thrown into the fiery furnace but God delivered them from that. Daniel in Daniel 6 verse Daniel was thrown into a pit of lions, but God preserved him, because he refused to obey a command which said that you could not pray to anybody but the Persian king. And yet Daniel continued to pray to the God of Israel. The Apostles, the Jewish Sanhedrin, Jewish ruling council, Acts 5, 27 and 29, they ordered them to no longer preach in Jesus' name, and they said we must obey God rather than men. So they understood that hey, you know, Sanhedrin has authority, we're under that authority, but even they are under God's authority, and Jesus commanded us to preach the gospel to all people, so we're going to do that. James, the son of Zebedee, was imprisoned and beheaded for preaching Jesus, Paul was beheaded for preaching the gospel and then you have the mark of the beast instituted by the Antichrist in the end times Revelation 13, 16 to 18 and 14, 9 to 11 if you accept the mark of the beast you'll be cast into the lake of fire forever and ever and so obviously God's telling us don't accept the mark of the beast, even though it's going to take civil disobedience there. So, I think that whenever a government command conflicts with God's command, if you can't submit both to God and the government, you submit to God and you perform an act of civil disobedience. Now, when it comes to revolution, this is a lot more difficult. It's... the overthrow of a government by its citizens. Norman Geisler's view is that a revolution is never justified. Geisler is a great guy. He even bought some, well I shouldn't even say that, he told me in confidence, but I'll tell you when we're off camera what he told me. But Geisler believes revolution is never justified. God gave the sword to the government not to authority to take up arms against the government. Schaefer's view is that if the government becomes tyrannical, the citizens have the right to revolt. Founding Fathers, the way they worded it, people not only have the right I think that's a little bit too big of a green light there. Like for instance, suppose you have a tyrannical government and you and your crew that want to revolt are even more power hungry than the tyrants that are ruling. the Snowballs chance in the 80s of winning, all you're going to do is get all the good guys killed. So, I think several things have to come into play. Again, it's kind of like the greater good, it's my unqualified minimal absolutism that to submit to the governing authorities, I don't even view you as a moral absolute. I think very few of God's, like love God and you've got to love your neighbors yourself. Those are moral absolutes. I don't see any exemption from thou shalt not commit adultery. There's cases where lying or stealing might be the right thing to do in a particular situation. like stealing a loaf of bread to save your family from starvation. I think during the reign of the Antichrist there will probably be a lot of believers stealing and lying. Rahab lied, the Hebrew midwives lied. My view goes along these lines. God institutes all human government, but government is to serve a certain and punish the evildoer, God may choose to raise up a new government from among the people. Just as God cast down the Canaanite governments in the Promised Land, I could see a situation where that would occur. God instituted at least one actual revolution in the Bible, in 2 Chronicles 22, if I can look at that 2 Chronicles 22 verses 10-12 Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal heirs of the house of Judah he actually fully succeeded in stopping the Messiah from coming about. But Jehoshavith, the daughter of the king, took Joash, the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king's sons who were being murdered, and put him and his nurse in a bedroom. So Jehoshavith, the daughter of King Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada, the priest, for she was the sister of Ahaziah, hid him from Athaliah so that she did not kill him. And he was hidden with them in the house of God for six years. and then verses 11-15 of the next chapter, and they brought out the king's son, put the crown on him, and gave him the testimony, and made him king. Then Jehoiada and his sons anointed him and said, Long live the king. Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people in the temple of the Lord. When she looked, there was the king standing by his pillar at the entrance. the leaders and the trumpeters were by the king, all the people of the land were rejoicing and blowing trumpets, also the singers with musical instruments and those who led and prayed. So Achaliah tore her clothes and said, treason, treason. And Jehoiada the priest brought out the captains of hundreds who were sent over the army and said to them, take her outside under guard and slay with the sword whoever follows her. For the priest had said to not kill her in the house of the Lord. So they seized her and she went by the way of the entrance of the horse gate into the king's house and they killed her there. So what you end up having, now you could say all they were doing was putting down, this isn't pro-revolution, this is anti-revolution. Because there was a godless revolution that occurred before and this just reverses that. Yeah, but it's over the period of six years. So, you have the rightful kings of Judah reigning, then you have a new government through the revolt, and then for six years And then you have another revolution with new government and the Kings of Judah once again rule. So it seems to me there's at least one instance of a revolution that God seems to be on the side of, okay? Now, some could say, okay, but this is only, this is an exception to the rule, because it's in the Davidic line of kings, and the Davidic covenant, and things of that sort. But I don't see that as the case. If the Bible declares one revolution, to be pleasing to the Lord, then in principle, at least, it's possible, theoretically possible, that a revolution could be pleasing to the Lord. Okay? That a situation could get so bad where revolution is needed to correct the problem. Now let me say something about John Calvin had something very interesting. his view on it was that revolution was permissible to defeat tyranny but it had to be it had to come from lower level magistrates and some of the founding fathers seemed to hold that So, in other words, we think of the Founding Fathers as revolutionaries, but many of them held positions in the colonies. They were kind of the lower, like, they might have been, like, what we would call precinct committee officers, or on the city council, or a mayor, or something along those lines. So it would kind of be like a demonic guy becoming the Pope in Roman Catholicism, and then priests, but there's still some good priests, some good bishops, some good cardinals who don't back him, and that would be, in this view, that would be a permissible revolution, but you've got to have somebody in a position of authority, because the civilians don't have that authority to take it on themselves. David actually refused to be part of a revolution and said God's going to have to remove him and having said that you're still kind of you've gone from a theocracy to a kingship but God's still the one who anoints kings and God anointed David so he's not You know, he's a shepherd boy, but he's a shepherd boy anointed by God's prophet to be the next king. But even he felt, that it's not my job. So you could actually, you could actually use David to try to argue against. It would give you some ammunition for the anti-revolution side. At the same time, I think there's this one instance there, and then no command, thou shalt never revolt. door open. Now what I would say though, revolution, as should be the case for all war, contrary to current democratic and neoconservative republican views, war should only be attempted as a last resort and that includes revolution, either self And so that leads us to the Just War Doctrine on the next page. When it comes to war, the three views held by Christians are activism, every war declared by one's government is right. By the way, Christian right in America is almost there. It's hard to believe that a Democratic president or a Republican president would bomb anybody with the exception of Israel without the church being up in arms. But activism, every, you know, my country, right or wrong, every war declared by one's government is right. Pacifism, war is never right. And the view that I'm arguing for is selectivism. Some wars are just. thinkers such as Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas. First off, you've got to have a just cause. There's got to be sufficient reason to engage in war. Self-defense, protection of innocent life, human rights. Then it's got to be held by competent authorities. So these Christian thinkers said, it's got to be government authority, not private groups. So, if you had, if you applied this to revolution, it would have to be lower level magistrates. I have Genesis 14, 11-16 with a question mark after it. And that's because you have Abram and 300 of his servants, who apparently were trained in commando tactics, that went to war with, I think, four different kings and defeated them in order to rescue Lot and his family. And so I'm not really sure that Calvin and Augustine, the Just War Theorists, that they're competent in authority. I'm at least open to the possibility that God may raise up within the people How did God make the first government? He took regular people. Basically though, the Hatfields can't declare war on the McCoys. You gotta be a competent authority. Governments have wars, not people. By the way, we always assume that America has the right to knock off dictators all over the place because we have the moral high ground. I'm not sure, how many babies do we have to abort? How many babies do we have to kill before maybe we'll come to the realization that our government might not be better than Saddam Hussein? So, is our nation really more just than the other nations we're dropping bombs on? Right intention. There's got to be a desire for peace, the restraining of evil, and the assisting of good, not the intention to gain more power, gain more land. That's why the final fathers were so fed up with European wars, they were just kings lying to their people, pretending there was a just cause, when in reality, I mean, our war on Iraq, OK? President Bush, George W. Bush, gave a different reason, dependent on his audience. Before the UN, he said, we have to enforce the UN sanctions, even though the UN doesn't seem to be as passionate about that as we are. Before the American people, it's the weapons of mass destruction. Got to protect us from the weapons of mass destruction. And he had a third reason for, oh, before some groups, it's all the his own people that Saddam Hussein has killed. By the way, we looked at point number seven in Just War Doctrine. Proportionality, the good to be achieved by war, must outweigh the evil that will result by it. So at least looking back in retrospect, I think we'd have to call the Iraq War unjust even though before the war, in my book, God, Government, and the Road to Tyranny, I was arguing that we shouldn't go to war with Iraq. I was arguing against it, so I was there with Rand Paul and Ron Paul, arguing against it, but proportionality, good to be achieved by war, and if it's that way, the evil that will result by it, in retrospect, we can look and say, well, we exchanged Saddam Hussein for ISIS. Was that Is there less evil now or more evil coming out of that? Now, by the way, we can get, that's something that you can get wrong. You can think you're going to produce good results and really try to do that, which is good. But I think that just proves from the start that, you know, toppling the Muammar Gaddafi's, and by the way, I think we have more to do with toppling Muammar Gaddafi than we realize, and I think that's why some lady had her own email server, but toppling Middle Eastern tyrants who aren't real serious Muslims usually creates a vacuum where the void is filled by a much more serious Middle Eastern Muslim who usually kills a lot more people than the former tyrants. Saddam Hussein, I don't Saddam Hussein, you couldn't, ISIS couldn't get any traction because he would just slaughter anybody who wasn't totally submitted to him. And that's, you might think, well that's horrible, but it's a lot better than ISIS coming to power. And you know, I just think there's a lot of wars that America gets into, just none of our business. Okay, we talked about the right intention. Last resort, all peaceful alternatives have to be exhausted. By the way, we like doing sanctions, but almost always sanctions just increases the... It makes it look like war was the last resort, but it really wasn't because we went with sanctions first. But usually sanctions, once the people start starving in a certain country because of our sanctions, we almost always force their hand. probability of success. See, the thing is, the Founding Fathers were not pacifists, but they were so selective, they wanted nothing to do with European wars. That's why George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us to avoid foreign entanglements. Don't sign treaties with other countries so that if they go to war, you gotta go to war too. So last resort, all peaceful alternatives have to be exhausted. Probability of success, certainty is not needed because we can't produce that. But don't knowingly spill blood in vain. So I mean, saying that, hey, you know what? We're going to go to war. By the way, this is the main reason why I'm opposed to any talk of a revolution today, of an armed revolution today. The probability of success is so low that all you're going to do is get good guys killed. But I would challenge you to read the Declaration of Independence. the Declaration of Independence and you tell me who had more freedom, our founding fathers of the Great Britain or us today, and I think you could actually make a case that we have less freedom than our founding fathers had. But I think they had the right to revolt because they had a slim chance of winning. I don't think we have that chance today. I think we've allowed our government to get so powerful if the economy collapses or if the government starts going door-to-door confiscating firearms, if there's a way where you can get away and protect your loved ones, go for it, but self-defense does not always equate war or revolution. So don't knowingly spill blood in vain. Proportionality the good to be achieved by war must outweigh the evil that will result by it. And, you know, if it was like, wow, this dictator treats us like garbage, and we're not fully free, but if that means going to war with him for 30 years, and getting slaughtered, so many of the people you know, if by revolting, if by going to war, you actually create less freedom for the people you wanted to get free, you know, it doesn't seem the proportionality was there. So the good to be achieved by the war must outweigh the evil that will result by it. And then number eight, discrimination. Military targets, not innocent civilians. Okay? We right now, our view, the American view on collateral damage, if we know that an Al-Qaeda leader or an ISIS leader is going to be in a building at such and such a time, we think we know, and when we blow it up, instead we kill men, women, and children, and hundreds of them, or just had a wedding thing, and then guys like John McCain say, well, the collateral damage there was acceptable, because we really thought the guy was going to be there, but he wasn't. At what point does accepting so much collateral damage... At what point did we become as bad as the bad guys, who were just going around killing civilians? Now, I catch a lot of flack for this, But I do agree with Norman Geisler and Pat Buchanan. I don't think dropping the hydrogen bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ever just. I mean, even after, when we brought Japan to the table to surrender, we had that same, pretty much that same agreement even before that and we turned it down. And so I think if I were the President of the United States, even if it meant being in war and having our warriors risk their lives for the next 50 years, As long as we don't have a draft, I would be more okay with that than I would be saying, let's kill their women and children, and that'll break their backs. In the case of Japan, women and children were being harmed. They were estimating we would have had to kill 3 million people to win the war. I'm not so sure about that, and we certainly don't have time to debate the issue. I don't see that as the way to go. Having said that, though, two points need to be made. A just war, even if it meets all the criteria, a just war can still be fought unjustly. So you could have a just war, and then your guys are just mowing down innocent civilians, even though that's not the strategy. So you still gotta fight a just war justly, But the final point I would add that I don't think it was addressed by the Church Fathers, and that is a God-ordained war overrides just war criteria. Okay? A God-ordained war overrides just war criteria. What I'm getting at is some of the Old Testament laws ordered by God Now, somebody can respond and say, well, the Muslims, they think it's a just war because they think Allah has commanded them to wage this war. And so it does come down to a point where my argument against the Islamic terrorists is twofold. Number one, I think it's unjust, but number two, one of the reasons why not God. I believe they're worshiping a false God and they're getting their orders from a false God. But there are some times when we respond in such a way that we would be declaring some orders that God ordered in the Old Testament to be unjust. nuclear disarmament, Archbishop Raymond Unhouse, this was in a speech at Notre Dame, he was the Archbishop out here in the Seattle area, he said the United States should unilaterally disarm itself and that this would further the cause of world peace. He believed we would be evaded, but even if we're evaded, we must bear our cross. How that's going to help the world be a better place by us basically surrendering to the old Soviet Union, I don't know. But it sounds to me like it was a lot like Bertrand Russell who said, the British Atheist better red than dead. Now the reason why he said better red than dead, he was a big government guy himself. So it's not, was that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he, I believe he protested World War I, but whatever the case, better red than dead is the antithesis to, was it Patrick Henry who said, give me liberty or give me death? And so it's the exact opposite. You know, the American spirit says, look, if you're going to enslave me, it's over my dead body. Bertrand Russell was such a non-traditionalist, he believed, somewhat similar to Plato's Republic, that the government should raise the children and government-run orphanages, and that men should be allowed to go around and make as many babies as they want, But if we don't do the government-run orphanages, the ladies want to take care of the kids, go for it. They have the maternal instincts or whatever. So here Bertrand Russell was supposed to be such a politically correct guy, but I was about as anti-woman as it gets. This is bad news. Archbishop Raymond Hunthauser was born in my hometown, Anaconda, Montana. Oh really, was he? Right. You ever hear of him, Anaconda, Montana? I tried to debate him a few times, but I could never get... I'd call up this guy some lower-ranking priest, but they didn't know who I was, so I guess I wasn't a big enough name to debate the guy. But in reputation, to Raymond Hunthausen's view, turning the strongest free nation in the world into a wimp doesn't further the cause of world peace. 1980s talk, we could actually debate the issue about whether or not America's the freest nation on Earth. I think what we do have that puts us at the shoulders of most nations on Earth is we're the most armed nation. So it's really hard to enslave people when they have firearms. And it doesn't even mean, you might say, well I don't have firearms. Don't worry. It's not how many people have firearms, it's how many people the government thinks might have firearms. And believe me, as evil as our political leaders look now, if they disarmed us, we would really find out how evil they actually are. And the Hitlers, the Stalins, they're big on gun control. They don't want people that are well armed that can shoot back at them. But the weaker a nation is, the more device invasion. Dictators have killed more people in the past century than wars. So I don't agree with the unilateral disarmament. What about Jimmy Carter's view, mutually assured destruction? So you have it. nuclear disarmament or nuclear weapons. You have Munchausen with the unilateral disarmament. You have Jimmy Carter with man, mutually assured destruction. And then you have Ronald Reagan his view of nuclear defense. By the way, two really good books on this topic, I've got them listed in your notes. Robert Jastrow, well-renowned, he's actually an astrophysicist with NASA, How to Make Nuclear Weapons Obsolete. And then Joe Martino's work, A Fighting Chance, The Moral Use of Nuclear Weapons. Joe Martino was a former retired Air Force colonel with a PhD in war strategy. But Jimmy Carter's Mutually Assured Destruction, if we keep a balance of power, both the United States and the old Soviet Union would destroy each other if there were nuclear exchanges. And you target cities as a threat. So you say, Soviet Union, if our satellites pick up your warheads coming our way, we're gonna bomb all your cities and just kill as many Russian people as we can. The reputation of this though is if a bluff fails, the choice is suicide or surrender. And at least back with the old Soviet Union, the United States seemed to value its citizens more than the old Soviet Union did. And so it's not really a defense, it's only a deterrent. So a deterrent... Keg is really angry at me. And he comes towards me and he's got like a stick in his hands, okay? And I go like this and make a Bruce Lee face and all, okay? If I don't know Kung Fu, that's just a deterrent, okay? I'm bluffing. And Kanku say, don't give me that Bruce Lee stuff, you don't know anything about Kung Fu or Karate. But he calls my bluff, and I really don't know how to defend myself, that's toast. But if I'm not bluffing, if I really know Kung Fu or really know how to defend myself, that's a real defense. Okay? So, a deterrent is a bluff. Ronald Reagan said, look, you know what? We value human life more than the old Soviet Union. He called the old Soviet Union the evil empire. And Ronald Reagan said, if we have a choice, see, if we, if we, if the Soviet Union sent a nuclear warheads our way, and then we say, OK, without a choice, it's either suicide or surrender, we either surrender to them, and then take that first wave of hits, or we push buttons too, which will then cause them, their first strike will be taking out as much of our nuclear arsenal as possible. So if we don't fire them, we're going to lose them, use them or lose them. So we start shooting back and stuff and then we just got this all out nuclear holocaust going on. Ronald Reagan said, look, we need to prepare to win a nuclear war if necessary. So what he did, it's all spelled out in Joe Martino's work and he argues for it. He wanted smaller, mobile, smaller nuclear warheads that are mobile, they move around either on trident subs or they're moving around on railroad tracks so you can't target them because they're always moving. and he wanted more accurate nuclear weapons with less fallout, so you'll have less loss of innocent life, and the ability to hit strategic military targets, not cities. And since they're mobile, they're not easy to target in a first strike. He also wanted a neutron bomb that if we, our allies, are invaded, the neutron bomb, I believe, explodes in the atmosphere, so it's not the explosion that kills, it's the radiation, and it's done in such a way that it clears up within a few days. So let's say Israel's being invaded, we could set off neutron bombs, let it get in Israel a heads up, people get into, they don't have to get into the greatest bomb shelters on planet Earth. But just someone where they're sheltered from the air outside, then three days later they come out and they just gotta clean up the bodies. Which, by the way, it sounds like something like that's going on in Ezekiel 38, 39. So many bodies, they gotta put markers by the bodies. And Reagan wanted what was nicknamed Star Wars Defense System, which would be a true defense against a nuclear first strike. Robert Jastrow in his How to Make Nuclear Weapons Obsolete said that in a four-tier system using 1980s smart bullet technology, and he said, now we're coming up with laser But with this, if you had 24 satellites positioned so that they would always, some of them would always have the Soviet Union in their sights, and you had a four-tier system, you know, it's like this is the Earth, and you get one as it leaves the Earth's atmosphere, is about to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere, and then another here, a four-tier system, if each one just shot out four of every five in the sky, start with a thousand, now only 200 get through. That's a very conservative figure. And then out of that, that 200, four of every five, so now only 40 get through. And then out of that, what only, is it what, 32 get, I mean only 8 get through, and then out of that only 2 get through, so you end up having only 2 out of every 1,000 nuclear missiles would get through. Which means, in a first strike you don't target cities, you target your opponent's nuclear weaponry. And if only two got through, it's like a mosquito bite on an elephant. And now you ticked off the elephant. But with laser technology, chances are none of them are going to get through. And believe me, Ronald Reagan came at the right time, because at this time, the Soviet Union, if we had an all-out exchange, 85% of their population could have survived because they purposely made their subways in such a way that they're good bomb shelters for nuclear exchanges, whereas in America only about 15% would survive, and they'd almost all be government officials. And so it looked like they were gearing up for something, and Ronald Reagan turned back the clock, on doing that. Also, one other thing that I would mention here is the difference between a first strike, I got to debate this of all places in Tacoma Federal Court, and first use. God bless the plate, we'll stay in touch weapons. Judge Tanner was the judge, and he let so much irrelevant stuff go on, and my lawyer, the military lawyer, wouldn't object because he saw Judge Tanner was interested in the debates that were going on. But a guy said that we have, one of the guys who was on trial, the defendant himself, said that America has a first strike policy. I said, no we don't. He said, yes we do. We'll use nuclear weapons first. I said, yeah, but we don't have a first strike. First strike means that you're the first to use nuclear weapons because you want to catch the other side off guard and you want to destroy them. First use though means we might be the first to use nuclear weapons but it's been provoked through conventional means. So let's say if we were really a good friend of Israel and the old Soviet Union was invading Israel, we might be the first to use nuclear weapons. but a first strike implies that it's unprovoked. So, so first strike unprovoked, first use is provoked by your enemy's conventional warfare. Conventional means a second strike would be provoked by your enemy's first strike. Okay? But just keep in mind the difference in that terminology. Okay, let's take a break for about 20 after.