Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Neocon who wrote (30632)	10/1/2001 5:08:14 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) of 82486

As I said, MAD was about tonnage (and target count). The belief being that, if you hit 20% of the targets that you aimed for, you're still talking about a practical and literal decimation of the population centers. Relatively minor hits on the WTC may be plunging us into recession. I've heard numbers of 1 Million Hotel workers alone may be laid off. Imagine this times 1,000 or more worldwide. Not very pretty, to say the least. LOW represented a new stakes increase and a blind reliance on technology. BTW, Reagan's anti-missile initiative "Star Wars" is like handing out umbrellas in a hailstorm. The number of successful interceptions would almost certainly be less than 50%. Optimists said maybe 90% but no tests have come close to this number. Using real data, if you look at the number of Scud (a low-tech, low-speed missile) interceptions by Patriot missiles, it was very low. Even if the most optimistic projections were right, there's still a lot of nuclear tonnage coming through the net. And what if they smuggle it under the net? Not too hard to do in free country.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next