SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: quehubo who wrote (68934)5/28/2008 7:32:12 AM
From: KonKilo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542168
 
Are you expecting radical Islam to occupy and rebuild us after a surrender to them?

I think you are underestimating our national character. We certainly didn't roll over and surrender after Pearl Harbor and I doubt a few WMD would make us throw up our hands either.

You may want to make your decisions on whether we can survive a few WMD attacks, I prefer our present form of survival to our existence after a nuclear or other WMD attack.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I think it is the basis for our debate going forward:

Can we ever completely stop terrorist attacks and if we could, would we have the sort of nation that we'd like to live in?



To: quehubo who wrote (68934)5/28/2008 11:32:07 AM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 542168
 
You may want to make your decisions on whether we can survive a few WMD attacks, I prefer our present form of survival to our existence after a nuclear or other WMD attack.

Who could argue with that?

But it seems black and white to me. Any steps we take have a cost. Some threats are call for any cost. For others, the cost is greater than the threat. You don't build a fortified castle and spend the rest of your life alone in it to avoid a black eye. There are threats that we can survive. Weigh the cost of the damage against the cost of avoiding the damage. It's only sensible to apply effort proportionate to the risk.