posted on April 30, 2002 02:39:51 PM new
The excerpt below is from an article about the economy. The link is below.
"But couldn't the ongoing threat of terrorism derail this economic expansion?
The Sept. 11 terrorist attack was the closest thing to jeopardizing the long boom.
The key issue in the next 10 years is whether we can avoid a weapon of mass destruction going off on U.S. soil. If a suitcase nuke or a rogue nuke goes off in the downtown of a major U.S. city, that could be a shock to the psyche of the American people in a way that would make 9/11 just a small beginning.
That is a very real possibility. In fact, one of the guys who we interviewed for our next book, John Arquilla, from the Monterey Naval Academy, put the odds at 1 in 4 that we're going to see, in the next decade, one of these weapons of mass destruction going off. And he's part of the security establishment that's desperately putting that on the front of the agenda of what they need to stop."
posted on April 30, 2002 03:03:31 PM new
A nuke is 1940's technology. I now how to make a simple fission bomb and I am just a high school graduate who is uncomfortable with calculus. But it would only be a few tens of kilotons. It is really complex tro make the big mountain busters of 50 megaton and more that the big powers have. It is also of diminishing return. You have to increase yield by the factor of a cube to double destructive power. So it is cheaper and easier to use a couple small ones than one huge one.
The truth is a nuke like I could make or like the small stsates could make will take only the core out of a big city.
If you did it to Detroit it would be more like a 10 second slum clearance. Everything of importance is spread all over the suburbs and the only real inconvenience would be the fallout if the wind was the wrong way.
The 9/11 attack DID as much damage as a small nuke would do.
If they sneak one in and ground burst it the fallout from the fireball sucking up the dirt will be worse than the boom. You really need to airburst a small one to maximixe damage.
Yeah - It will probably happen. Get over it and try not to be there.
As far as technology doing away with poverty. You have large groups of people like in sub-sahara Africa who simply have nothing to trade that the people who have the means to lift them out of poverty want. They are basically given in charity enough food right now to survive the worst years of periodic drought. The people who are producing the goods the world wants are not going to lift these people up to a condition where they can compete for the same markets as their benifactors. I can't see them even getting to a state where they have anything to trade for the basic food they need. It is going to get worse not better. The only way the charity will increase is if they become a problem with unrest and revolution threatening the minerals need from Africa for the developed nations. Global warming and the spread of weapons of mass destruction to small nations such as biological weapons may reduce the population there back to a level that the land can sustain.
posted on April 30, 2002 04:07:02 PM new
The problem with hitting a city center is not so much that that is where the action is, but it is where most if not all of the records and paperwork are kept for everything from property transfers and tax records to court records.
A dirty bomb would be worse than an explosion. The contamination would leave the area uninhabitable.
posted on April 30, 2002 11:30:48 PM new
Our best protection from this threat is to stop our reliance on foreign oil. That's an old rag, but it's the truth. The Very Best Thing that American can do is just what I suggested; and no, it's not impossible -- just unlikely with Bush Oil, Inc. running the country. And with Bush running around out there lying about how he's trying to protect us from new terrorism from abroad, he's actually making it a lot worse. The more dependance on foreign oil, the more likely you'll suffer from 10 million degree sunburn on some bright sunny day.
So, is it a real threat? About as much a chance of that happening than to see Americans do what they have to to get rid of these Oil mongers and convert our economy to a near oiless economy.
posted on May 1, 2002 12:27:11 AM new
The net result of Bush's so-called war on terrorism is a reduction of opium crops in Afghanistan. In short, one drug dealer is out, and another raises prices. I don't see any more that that. And the way Bush is kissing Arafat's ass doesn't reassure me much. Was this ever about terrorism?
posted on May 1, 2002 07:34:54 AM new"Was this ever about terrorism?"
No. Only in the media repeating the GOP Blather Machine Hype. Remember, Dear Republican Voters, how your own elected leaders like to look down their noses at you and remark about how your memory is so bad that you can't recall anything six months down the road. For you, I'll bet yer just there Standing Tall saluting Bush everytime you see him on the TV. Maybe your leaders are right.
posted on May 1, 2002 03:31:50 PM new
It has nothing to do with oil. It has nothing to do with "poor" people. It is simply genocide by people unable to carry it out. I agree with Bill Maher it is "the WEST vs ISLAM". Western culture tolerates most everything and there is no "coming together" with people who are ignorant, inflexible and devoted to murder cults. The people doing all of this have money. They just rather spend it knocking us off than feeding a couple of their starving brothers.
posted on May 1, 2002 06:26:24 PM new
I think that those terrorist attacks get much too much credit for economic impact. While the uneasiness engendered may inspire a short dip in consumer spending and a bigger one in the travel and hospitality industries it also brings lots of new spending such as for security and rebuilding.
posted on May 1, 2002 07:42:57 PM new
That's true - But you sometimes have trouble telling effective government spending from spending that just removes money from other activities that would be of more benefit.
A good test is - if the government did not spend the money to do something would privite industry or individuals do so?
An amusing example is the brother-in-law of the new mayor who promptly filled city hall with his relatives in various positions.
The best the mayor would do for the not so loved fellow was a job polishing and keeping the brass cannon that sat in front of city hall and the court house. No matter how he pleaded his case the mayor would never increase his salary until in anger and frustration the man bought his own brass cannon and went into business for himself.
posted on May 1, 2002 08:28:46 PM new
The economic impact is not just government expenditures. The private sector has also increased security expenditures and loss of international business.
There are some regions that companies have had to reduce exposure to.
The full economic impact hasn't been felt yet, it is still rippling through the economy. My homeowners insurance went up over 20% and the agent said it was largely due to the losses the re-insures got hit with on the 9-11 attack.
However, the more time elapsed, the less "on guard" we become, and barring another attack, the costs should begin to decrease.
I also predicted way back after the attacks that the money and support trail would lead back to saudi Arabia, and little by little the evidence points right to the b*stards.
My only point about oil independence is that we could starve them out, but it seems that the terrorist network spreads well beyond the oil producing countries to muslims world wide, so it does appear to be an us or them show down.
