Cerf does say that part of the reasoning behind packet switching was robust command and control in the event of nuclear war. Cerf doesn't say that ARPANET, in

Cerf does say that part of the reasoning behind packet switching was robust command and control in the event of nuclear war. Cerf doesn't say that ARPANET, in itself, was designed for that (and neither did I). This is also consistent with the following quote in the Baran interview you cite: Baran: But the origin of packet switching itself is very much Cold War. The argument was: To have a credible defense, you had to be able to withstand an attack and at least be able to show you had the capability to return the favor in kind. So there is no disagreement on that point, and your corrective "Actually, ..." is misplaced.