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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jill who wrote (4580)	10/12/2001 2:42:31 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The sky is not falling.

To: Jill who wrote (4580)	10/12/2001 2:53:13 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There is a bellcurve to risk. Why not minimize it? This is true. Do you have any indication that anything to do with the various 9.11 scares floating around could reduce risks anywhere near what staying away from cars would? 40k dead a year, there. What do you perceive as being more than noise level, measured against that risk?

To: Jill who wrote (4580)	10/12/2001 2:54:31 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

There is a bellcurve to risk. Why not minimize it? But that requires admitting that this is indeed a dangerous beginning to a long-term dangerous situation. As much as our governments do not want our society to react to these events, it will happen. For those that suggest the sky is not falling, that it isn't a significant issue, they are missing the point. A big percentage of our society will react, will hunker down, will change spending and travel habits. As much as government are trying to stem off panic or even milder but still significant change in behaviour, there have been and will be changes in our behaviour just the same. I guess there is no specific Foreign Affairs component of this issue, since a terrorist led attack by bomb or Anthrax or Cyber-crime is still a terrorist attack, is it not? Or does bio-terrorism cross a line, like a nuclear attack might, that causes policy to take a different course? Maybe on this thread thinking about what lines-crossed and reactions or proactive policy might be worthwhile.