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: tekboy who wrote (4715)	10/13/2001 10:39:37 AM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Judith Miller shows up on the news page today, too, presumably somewhat to her own dismay. The letter to The New York Times was sent to Judith Miller, a reporter who has written extensively about chemical and biological weapons. She is co-author with two other Times reporters of a new book, "Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War." According to Ms. Miller, the letter "contained future threats against the United States." It mentioned the Sears Tower in Chicago and President Bush, she said. . . . Across town, sometime between 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., Ms. Miller opened a plain white envelope that was addressed to her. Powder, white and smelling like talcum, fell out, landing on her face, hands and sweater, she said. "What I thought you can't print," she said. "What I said you can't print." (from nytimes.com )

To: tekboy who wrote (4715)	10/13/2001 11:13:41 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So the slaughter of 6,000 people has affected US, and other countries, foreign policy. Anyone hazard a guess as to what a larger, more widespread, death toll (whether from biochem warfare or other means) might do to policy? The international verbal condemnation of the 9-11 attack is one thing but certainly there are nations who have not yet stepped up to the commitment and task of a thorough and complete terrorist hunt. (And how can tolerant democracies be encouraged in these areas?) How would tools of policy - military, economic - then be used? I hesitate to mention diplomatic because isn't diplomacy simply finding a balance between military and economic threat, suitable for achieving a particular goal? Or maybe that's the way things are now...

To: tekboy who wrote (4715)	10/13/2001 1:19:43 PM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

My take on bioterror: We live in interesting times. The merchants of gas masks and freeze-dried rations are making a bundle as once-sane Americans are resorting to methods of survivalists and crackpot militias. The populace is becoming driven by fear... but what is it that is feared? Death. That inevitable thing that none can escape. And the fact is, there is no effective defense against bio-chemical attacks. By the time the need to put on masks is realized, it is usually too late. And because strains of biological agents can be altered into vaccine resistant mutants, vaccines can be a waste of time. Further, mass vaccination has risks, including the breeding of just such mutant strains. I'm not suggesting a better response is nothing at all, but the current response is frivolous. If we put into perspective what risks we face daily, with or without OBL & The Base (English for Al Qu-whatever), it would make more sense to buy airbags, quit smoking tobacco, use mass transit, exercise more, replace nuclear power with alternate energy development, stop using anti-bacterial soaps, incarcerate the violent and release the non-violent, and eliminate herbicides from our diet and world. We can't eliminate death or taxes, but in the struggle for sustainability, perhaps we can learn better risk assessment and reduce the onset of mass stupidity.