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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (30644)	10/1/2001 9:51:06 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<as horrible as 20mil dead would be its a lot better then 250mil > From your numbers (1 - 20/250) * 100% = 92% effective. I simply love game theory. I take it you are using something better than the MOST optimistic 90% number? Okay. Even the proponents of the system say that it is unlikely that such a system could do anything more than protect the core of the war machine from a nuclear onslaught. Universal protection of the population has ONLY been said by idiot politicians like Ronny Ray-gun. Now, if the decoys are part of a combined nuke/biological strategy and contain biologics encased in styrene beads cemented with starch (which come apart after being blown around the entire countryside), even the protected war machine operators probably wouldn't be safe. Best go find out why your enemy IS your enemy and head it off with other methods than try to defend from this type of attack. I don't define this end-game as a victory for me. A much more effective (though morally questionable) method would be totally proactively smash all would-be attackers now (since we have the strength to do so).