Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pierre who wrote (91732)	1/12/2001 11:49:06 AM
From: dan_oz	Respond to of 152472

Pierre, I agree that there are major problems with thinking that a missle shield is an absolute solution. A terrorist can put a nuclear device on a ship and cruise it to a target in the states. But that takes time (days to weeks), and the device itself would have to be fairly large (Fitting in a large truck or cargo ship.) Currently, there are defenses (admittedly weak) against this scenario (Coast Guard, intelligence, etc.) There is no defense against a missile that can be delivered in a matter of minutes. I am only thinking of this from a risk management perspective. Granted, in the near future if someone wants to deliver a device into the U.S. and is persistent enough, they will do so. But why let that stop us from trying?

To: Pierre who wrote (91732)	1/12/2001 12:01:02 PM
From: Jim Fleming	Respond to of 152472

China is not going to go isolationist. The question is, what names do we want to see on the contracts. i.e. Nokia , Erricson, Nortel, Alcatel, Siemans or Motorola, Lucent, Qcom(spinco). A nervous Jim