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: carranza2 who wrote (44829)	5/17/2004 12:35:43 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793604

The question on the table is are we in an existential struggle? I think so Now your confusing me. You just posted to me that we weren't. The distinction matters. If we're not in an existential struggle, that is, the US would not cease to exist in recognizable form, then other risks such as hurricanes are relevant to the discussion. It the terrorists aren't going to wipe us out, then we need to look at the damage they can do more sensibly--look at it relative to other damage that might be done to us by other forces. If the damage the terrorists can do is no worse than a bad earthquake or a bad hurricane, then our response to terrorism needs to be measured just as our response to the risk of earthquakes is measured. If we are in at existential level risk, then for sure we pull out all the stops.

To: carranza2 who wrote (44829)	5/18/2004 8:37:48 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793604

<<< The question on the table is are we in an existential struggle? I think so, and I pointed out how easily it is for our opponents to damage us and our way of life--heck, they did so on 9/11.>>> Societies, nations, civilizations are always undergoing existential struggle. The fact that we are in existence for 250 years (or 2-3,000 years depending on your view of us),in the overall scheme of things, is not certainty that we can continue for another 250 or 2000 or 3000 years. The question in my opinion, is how much credit you want to give the engineers of 9/11 to be able to change the course of history. I don't think they can do it on their own. For them to become an existential threat, they would need a lot of help from us. Those images of several dozen terrorists undergoing military training in the desert scare the hell out of me whenever those images are juxtaposed against the images of the WTC collapsing. But, suppose you don't want to compare that existential threat against the existential threat of an asteroid like the one(s) that ended the existence of dinosaurs on earth (and which we can do something to guard against in the future), how about comparing the capabilities of the Islamic terrorists versus the potentially existential threat from North Korea. In North Korea they have land to train their military. They have banking systems to pay for the training and to buy equipment. They have modern means of communications to coordinate their nefarious plans. They have infrastructure that can create weapons of mass destruction. The ME terrorists have none of these assets. So are they super human? Can they do things that North Koreans couldn't do with all their resources? Okay, so your argument goes they can do a hell of a lot with very little. All they need are a few people willing to give up their lives and give them a few box cutters, and that can cause tremendous damage to our way of life. I agree. This is not only a possiblity but a stated goal of some of these people. But, what is even more freigtening, is that this model (a few disgruntaled people with enough resolve could end civilization as we know it) would no doubt continue even if we were able to kill every (or people even thinking about becoming an) Islamist terrorist. There would no end to a list of disgruntaled or jealouse people ready to use any means to settle perceived wrong doing. The conclusion therefore to pull out all the stops to fight Islamic terrorists at the risk of damaging our value systems may not be a very good solution.