Politics for Pros- moderated 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 : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: unclewest who wrote (59985)	8/13/2004 7:09:21 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 793904

You only say that because imo you think you understand or fear nukes...But what I hear is you don't understand or fear chemicals and bio agents. I don't presume to understand any kind of weapons at greater than a superficial level. Weaponry is not my forte. As for what I fear, my fear is a function of risk, that is, the probability of harm to me and mine and the extent of that harm. What I fear most is the irrational panic of the populace. I fear ut nist because it is both highly likely--it doesn't even require nukes or chemicals or bio agents--and the most dangerous of all the threats because it directly impacts our way of life country wide. The various weapons you mention would be ranked according to their deliverability, their destructive power, and their fearsomeness to the populace. Nuclear explosions are the most fearsome to people, at or near the top of the list in destructive power, and towards the bottom in deliverability. Getting nukes out of the equation altogether would mean the difference, IMO, between a threat that was potentially overwhelming and one that is manageable. That's why I call them utterly different wars.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next