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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Taro who wrote (236713)	6/10/2005 3:44:42 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571198

re: Same à priori argument as for the Twin Towers. Not even the first attempt on them could alert the experts to the fact that it was (more than) doable. That was simple compared with this. Hell, they did it with box cutters. All it took was about 50 people and a low investment. What do you think NK would charge for a nuke? And who would/could make that investment with an infinitesimal chance of success? And what would be the repercussion to NK? No, the nuke thing is pretty much out of the question. I am surprised that there haven't been lower level terrorist acts in the US. Only two in our entire history. John

To: Taro who wrote (236713)	6/11/2005 2:48:15 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571198

Then it was done... Just imagine that had happened to one of the "Old Europe" countries! Shame on the US and a defense line equally expensive but no more efficient than Maginot. The bad guys against all your odds always find a way around. Good argument for not trying to outsmart the bad guys. Certainly, with 9/11, we weren't even trying. The US Air Force was totally unprepared for such an eventuality. As for nukes, this is what I've heard we need to worry about......if that's what we want to do....worry: "Now for some qualified good news: The highest probability terrorist attacks are the ones that cause the least loss of lives. The most likely attack is a conventional car bomb that kills scores of people but is unlikely to destroy the fabric of a city or significantly harm economic activity. The next highest probability terrorist attack uses chemical weapons. Such an attack would be hideous, but it poses a relatively minor threat both in terms of lives lost and long-term economic damage. "Although some models indicate that limited amounts of sophisticated chemical weapons can produce thousands of casualties, it is more likely that a serious chemical attack or incident would produce 1,000 casualties or less," writes Anthony Cordesman in a report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Cordesman continues, "It would take a highly sophisticated group to launch multiple attacks and produce large amounts of highly lethal agent. As a result, it seems unlikely that either defenders or responders will have to deal with the kind of chemical attack(s) that could cripple a significant part of the economy, paralyze a city, vastly over-saturate available response and medical facilities, cause lasting panic and a loss of faith in political institutions, or threaten the fabric of American society. In this sense, chemical weapons differ fundamentally from biological and nuclear weapons." Next in this hierarchy of horrors are "dirty bombs," in which conventional explosives are used to spread radioactive materials throughout a city. Terrorists are far more likely to get their hands on radioactive material for a dirty bomb than they are to be able to buy or build a working version of an atomic bomb. Fortunately, dirty bombs pose little more real danger than do chemical attacks. Also on the list of atrocities that terrorists would want to unleash on the United States come biological attacks. Analysts at the US Centers for Disease Control issued a report that estimated that the economic impact of bioterrorist attack ranged between $477.7 million per 100,000 people exposed to brucellosis to $26.2 billion per 100,000 people exposed to anthrax. However, I suspect that these estimates are too high because few terrorists would be able to optimize the weaponization of these biological agents." reason.com