No Spoilers

Thanks for that Star Wars-era history, Rob.

But, of course, I and countless other people grew up in the 80s and 90s and love Star Wars. Sure, our parents encouraged our enthusiasm. But the series has appeal beyond the cultural markers of its original era or even America. It's popular worldwide. Granted, much of that is a bandwagon effect, but the series is truly special.

I'll cite just 3 factors.

First, like James says, Star Wars is "such a contrast" from typical sci-fi... and not just stories of the 1970s. It's science fantasy, rather than science fiction. Its focus is people, rather than technologies. It features timeless moral themes. It regards knights, wizards, and providence of sorts. And, as James says, it's fun, unlike the dry treatises that sci-fi authors often produce.

Second, John Williams' score lifts otherwise unremarkable characters and events to majesty and epic drama. The music stood out more at the time, but it continues to distinguish Star Wars from run-of-the-mill sci-fi.

Third, it offers an unlimited, imaginative, and compelling setting. The audience never knows where the story will turn next because there's an entire universe to explore. That world is full of implied history. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter all rely as much on the setting as on characters and plot. A story like those is never truly over (hence, the upcoming Harry Potter film without Harry Potter).

By the way , someone mention to Mr Hewitt that the nuclear triad is a touch outdated, we also have cruise missiles, a spaceplane and drones as methods of delivery.

The answer no one gave to his question should have been, "Damned if I know which one needs the most investments, Hugh. I do not yet have access to the readiness information and I should not. How the hell do you know? Is someone leaking that stuff to you?"

Well said about the "nuclear triad", Rob. It's irrelevant. Even if our nukes could deter our enemies, which they obviously don't in many cases, what President would actually use them? Truman didn't have to decide after a precedent of nuclear destruction and generations of hand-wringing. Even a Republican President in modern day would tolerate a huge number of American casualties and contested battles before even considering resorting to nukes.

And Peter is right that it's an obscure phrase. You folks who lived through the Cold War might be very familiar with it, but it's a term that one doesn't even hear regularly in discussions about the Cold War. One can know the concept without knowing the term. Ignorance of the phrase is hardly ignorance of MAD or of modern threats. It's a cheap gotcha question that apparently served its purpose.