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.

Pastimes : G&K Investing for Curmudgeons -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. Id who wrote (16652)	9/13/2001 11:52:37 AM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Respond to of 22706

And how would a larger military budget and greater weaponry have deterred a well planned terrorist attack using box cutters and our own planes? For that matter, how is it even likely to affect the response? Unless, of course, you believe that engaging in war against another sovereign state is among the acceptable responses. How is having a larger military going to assist in retaliation against a group whose membership is small and which is geographically disbursed at that.

To: Dr. Id who wrote (16652)	9/13/2001 12:08:54 PM
From: Percival 917	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 22706

I agree the answers are complicated and I am not advocating a missile defense shield as a deterrent. But increased security at our borders is a must. That these terrorists were able to enter so easily should not have ever been allowed to happen. And added security (marshalls) on all flights from here on out will also be necessary. As to our military budget would it not be easy for these extremists to perceive our reduced military spending as a sign of weakness. IMO a fanatical mind could rationalize this without a second thought. Relatively open borders, lax security at airports, and a military that has been dramatically cut was an open invitation for these lunatics. Again all IMO, ED