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: unclewest who wrote (20622)	3/5/2002 10:47:00 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I know people who feel as you do, uw, and Richard Betts, who wrote about intelligence reform for the last issue of FA and who is one of the most prominent security studies figures in the field, has long felt that civil defense issues have been unjustly slighted. Still, I'm not entirely convinced, for two reasons. First, panic isn't necessarily easy to avoid, and something like this might well have led to it--with significant negative consequences that leaders legitimately took into account. Second, my sense is that many younger folk (<45, say) find the whole "duck and cover" approach of the '50s so risible that they have a hard time taking civil defense seriously. I'm not sure what the answer to that is...maybe your book will help. tb@boom.com

To: unclewest who wrote (20622)	3/5/2002 11:46:18 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

the way in which the 10kt nuclear threat was handled was ridiculous, outrageous and pathetic. Absolutely right on. John

To: unclewest who wrote (20622)	3/5/2002 12:29:01 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

What would have been the proper way to handle a false threat from an intelligence source known to be extremely unreliable at the outset? Would it have done us any good if it became known that made-up threats of smuggled nukes would lead to evacuated cities? I think it's easier to argue that the current scaremongering over the incident is ridiculous, outrageous and pathetic.

To: unclewest who wrote (20622)	3/5/2002 10:12:40 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

it is pathetic that throughout this alert period, none of the 42 agencies working on home defense ever saw fit to spend a little time and money educating the citizens of NYC on how to survive a nuclear blast. I certainly can sympathize with your perspective on this issue UW. But given human nature, it's pretty much impossible to execute a quick civil defense information program in such a short period of time without creating a huge amount of unintentional panic (why are you teaching us this stuff if there's no threat?) based upon information that was unconfirmed. What about the rest of the country? If they could smuggle a 10K bomb into NYC, why not DC, or LA, or Miami?.. How about Atlanta or San Francisco (silicon valley)?? How about those folks living downstream from any of the major dams which such a bomb would have utterly destroyed?? What responsibility does the government have to prepare them for every potential event that can be imagined? Can the government justify focusing its entire attention on only particular target, and leave the rest of the nation unprepared? If they took special efforts in NYC, the rest of the country would be essentially unprepared should the terrorists get the sense that NYC was "too hot" and opt for "plan B". And I CAN believe that we're willing to accept 90,000 casualities in order to prevent the far more catastrophic impact of 15 million people absolutely freaking out. I would probably be inclined to make the same decision, even if I might face latter criticism. We're all targets UW. I saw the plumes of smoke from the Pentagon attack. In fact, since I was off that day, I went to Crystal City, fighting against the worst traffic jams I've seen in years out here (all roads toward DC were blocked so I had to take the frontage roads), in order to get a bird's eye view of the aftermath. Americans have to get used to one simple fact. There are few places to hide where we are safe. And even if provided a crash course on how to react to a nuke attack, such a response requires a lucid mind and repetition until its second nature (like all of those reaction exercises we practiced where we're trained to do what is not intuitive, such as attacking directly into an ambush rather than trying to escape it). In a perfect world, inhabited by logical humans who understand rationally why their government would want them to be knowledgable in the event of any contingency, then such a unique program for NYC might have been of use. But I hardly have to tell you, given your experience, that people aren't logical or rational in moments of extreme stress and panic.. And no matter how much you think you've taught them properly how to take care of themselves in such tragic events, they generally react as a human herd, following whoever they perceive as knowing more than they do about how to react. But I believe your book may fill that void. (I still have to get back to you and order a copy).. Hawk