Foreign Affairs Discussion Group 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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jill who wrote (4580)	10/12/2001 2:54:31 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) of 281500

There is a bellcurve to risk. Why not minimize it? But that requires admitting that this is indeed a dangerous beginning to a long-term dangerous situation. As much as our governments do not want our society to react to these events, it will happen. For those that suggest the sky is not falling, that it isn't a significant issue, they are missing the point. A big percentage of our society will react, will hunker down, will change spending and travel habits. As much as government are trying to stem off panic or even milder but still significant change in behaviour, there have been and will be changes in our behaviour just the same. I guess there is no specific Foreign Affairs component of this issue, since a terrorist led attack by bomb or Anthrax or Cyber-crime is still a terrorist attack, is it not? Or does bio-terrorism cross a line, like a nuclear attack might, that causes policy to take a different course? Maybe on this thread thinking about what lines-crossed and reactions or proactive policy might be worthwhile.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next