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: bentway who wrote (539245)	12/29/2009 12:16:07 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575173

"The actual probability that one of us might die of a terrorist attack on US soil. If we count Oklahoma City and 9/11, plus the smaller terrorist attacks, we end up with something close to 3100 terror deaths in ten years. That's about 310 deaths by terror on US soil per year. By comparison, we lose about 400,000 people per year to tobacco, and 20,000 to homicide." You are, of course, conflating the "actual" probability with the "empirical" probability, which are two totally different things. The "actual" probability must take into account the likelihood of a nuclear attack on a major American city which most experts agree is in our future unless radical changes are made to our national security policy, and frankly, we're moving AWAY from protecting ourselves, not toward. A small nuclear weapon detonated in Times Square will kill a million or more people and level everything within a 1/3 mile radius. A more likely scenario is a so-called "dirty nuke" which would do far less physical damage but the economic damage would be incalculable. You're very naive, as are most left wing nutjobs. I'm not quite sure what you'll say when it happens. You and Obama will BOTH be trying to blame Bush.