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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: mauser96 who wrote (12517)11/3/1998 10:46:00 AM
From: Ish  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
I have a feeling there are lots of zealots are willing to die to spread a virus or anthrax. We aren't the only country that has the ability to engineer a super deadly ebola or anthrax, like maybe add a few cold genes to ebola. Or add something to a cities water. This stuff scares me.



To: mauser96 who wrote (12517)11/3/1998 12:21:00 PM
From: mrknowitall  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
Lucius - re: Viruses and defending against them.

You don't need to "cover" a whole city or even a large part of one to generate a panic that would be at least as destructive as a huge explosion. Disease is one of man's greatest fears, and the fear of catching something would create a horrible neighbor-vs-neighbor nightmare, whether or not the spread of the virus was real or not. That is the ultimate terrorist weapon.

The fact is, and I'm not revealing anything that hasn't already been played out in various books or movies, our mobility is our greatest threat - and the DOD, Centers for Disease Control, FEMA, etc., all know the threat is actually unmanageable if it gets past a certain point in distribution in major metropolitan areas.

A few airplane trips later and the incubation is taking place in dozens of locations. Somewhere, someone isn't going to go to the doctor in time.

Frankly, IMO, we have no choice but to stop the nuts before they get here.

Mr. K.