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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (31544)	2/26/2004 7:57:22 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793640

The maximum threat level of terrorism and its chances of occurrence are not exactly quantified and what we know is not comforting. We know that if they had a suitcase nuke they could use, they would. That makes the threat quite different in both quantity and kind. Nadine, you are correct that the threat is different in quantity and kind. And that the parameters are not as well known. But as you imagine even the scenario of a suitcase nuke, you have to remember that it would take several of those to kill as many people as the flu does each year. What Bush is trying to do with the Bush Doctrine is set up a scheme of deterrence that might work on suicide bombers, by extending the net to their state sponsors. That is not to say that we shouldn't be doing what we're doing to prevent such attacks. The point that triggered this colloquy was the suggestion that we are not scared enough. We can do what we're doing with fear or without fear so what we're doing is not the issue. Fear is. I submit that the fear some would have us feel is all out of proportion. IMO, we would be more effective in our war on terrorism if we could pursue it without excess fear because our fear gives aid and comfort to our enemies and threatens our economy. But that's another matter. The matter at hand is whether we are sufficiently scared vis a vis the risk. I'd say that more fear is neither warranted nor constructive. Except for partisan purposes, of course, which was the framework in which the subject came up.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (31544)	2/26/2004 9:57:00 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 793640

I am not discounting the "non quantifiable nature" I am saying it is ILLOGICAL to make up a quantification for a non-quantifiable, because that leads people to emotional responses. People tend to make the threat as "quantifiable" as their fears will let them make it. Judging by the posts here, the fear factor allows for some pretty fantastic thinking. Your confidence in WHo is touching- but I wouldn't count too much on their tools or troops in a real viral pandemic. You'd be better off being less scared about terrorism than counting on WHO to protect you. Talk about discounting!