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: Lane3 who wrote (78137)	10/17/2004 12:39:04 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (2) of 793843

we expend our energy to defeat it proportional to the damage it does and the cost of mitigation. We aren't talking about pricing the cost of terrorism so as to best direct business decisions. You make the same mistake the documentary guys made. We're talking the criminal justice approach - "that's bad, don't do it" contrasted with "if you break it, clean it up." The criminal justice system does not settle on an optimum level of murders - it seeks to stop all murders. And it does so by a. hunting down and imprisoning or (as in Texas) killing those that murder and b. seeking to de-incentivize murder by making the sanction cost very high (death or life imprisonment). War is not a determination of decision cost. It is a moral sanction. The "damage" is any single American life. In WWII the US was willing to sacrifice 300,000 American lives after an initial damage of approx. 2000 lives. It isn't a pricing analysis. A political analysis of what is possible politically and/or militarily, but not a pricing analysis. No sane person sits around thinking that a dirty bomb detonated over Westminster is no big deal, because the risks of actual harm are minimal. Derek

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next