Re: Net and Terrorism.
At 12:14 AM 7/4/96, snow wrote:
Military troops can best be protected by 3 seperate methods:
2) When they _are_ exposed, let them fight the fuck back. Rules of engagment are simple. When fired on, shoot to kill. If the shot comes from a building, take out the building. If from a crowd,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Colonel, the mission was accomplished. Apparently the sniper was firing from the 34th floor, so we simply took out the building. There was minor collateral damage, of course." Such overreaction to terrorist events is often precisely what a terrorist wants, as I've explained a couple of times.
You are essentially making my point, that the biggest danger of the current responses to terrorism is that nations will turn to national terrorism and police state tactics.
I missed that in your original post.
Well, go back and look for it. The clear point of my post was that the U.S. should not adopt police state measures so as to reduce terrorism.
A third option is quite simply to buy as much of it as possible. No, wouldn't work. As with the "War on (Some) Drugs," all this does is raise the price a bit, actually making it a more tempting market for many to get into.
If the US were to offer Russia $3 billion (or whatever) in a one time take it or leave it for their entire chemical weapon stock, it might get the soviet shit off the market. The nuclear stuff is a little easier to store (I think) and it would be a harder sell.
As with "buying out" the coca crop in Peru, the poppy crop in Turkey, the marijuana crop in the dozens of countries, etc., their motto is, obviously enough, "we'll make more." Again, the Sarin attack in Tokyo had nothing to do with former U.S.S.R. CBW weapons. Chemical and biological agents are cheap to make, especially in the quanties needed to kill only a few thousand people, and in the non-battlefield delivery environment.
I agree tho' that it isn't possible to buy out the market.
Then why do you float ideas such as buying out the Soviet arsenal if you think it isn't possible? --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
At 12:14 AM 7/4/96, snow wrote:
Military troops can best be protected by 3 seperate methods: 2) When they _are_ exposed, let them fight the fuck back. Rules of engagment are simple. When fired on, shoot to kill. If the shot comes from a building, take out the building. If from a crowd,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Colonel, the mission was accomplished. Apparently the sniper was firing from the 34th floor, so we simply took out the building. There was minor collateral damage, of course."
I guess that part of the problem is that I was in the military, and while I was never actually under fire, there was always the possibility, and after hereing (from people who where there) the silly ass ROE, let's just say that when some one is trying to kill you it is nice to be able to do something about it. There is something to the theory of peer pressure. I would maintain that there is a difference between responding to immediate threats and long term supression.
Such overreaction to terrorist events is often precisely what a terrorist wants, as I've explained a couple of times.
Sometimes the terrorists are relying on exactly the opposite, a lack of immediate reaction. This makes the government look impotent.
A third option is quite simply to buy as much of it as possible. No, wouldn't work. As with the "War on (Some) Drugs," all this does is raise the price a bit, actually making it a more tempting market for many to get into.
If the US were to offer Russia $3 billion (or whatever) in a one time take it or leave it for their entire chemical weapon stock, it might get the soviet shit off the market. The nuclear stuff is a little easier to store (I think) and it would be a harder sell.
I agree tho' that it isn't possible to buy out the market.
Then why do you float ideas such as buying out the Soviet arsenal if you think it isn't possible?
Market v.s. Arsenel. Difference between buying a car dealership and buying the Big 6 Auto Makers. I was simply refering to removing the soviet stocks from the market. That would force the prices up a but, might get some private dealers into the market, but I wouldn't think that this particular market is all that big. I may be wrong about the size of the market. Petro, Christopher C. petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow@crash.suba.com
participants (2)
-
snow -
tcmay＠got.net