> All it takes is one very hateful guy with a lot of dough and he's got > himself an ICBM. Suddenly, New York has about 1 million dead.
yes... ALOT of dough indeed.... billions and a place to install a launch pad... and personal etc etc That is way simplifying things don't you think? Benjamin ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 4:07 PM Subject: RE: Ouch > Before Sept. 11, the thought of two planes flying into the WTC was "remote > at best." > > All it takes is one very hateful guy with a lot of dough and he's got > himself an ICBM. Suddenly, New York has about 1 million dead. > > I'm not saying it's not remote -- if it was easy, Bin Laden would have done > it -- but since there is no reason not to prepare for such a threat, why not > do it. The residual benefits will make it worthwhile any way (increased > employment, more money churning through the economy, new technological > breakthroughs, and not just military wise). > > H. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gary P. McNeel, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 11:31 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Ouch > > > Or the time is to put better espionage systems in place. With our satellite > systems today we can see just about everything. The chance of a functional > BM falling into the hands of terrorists is extremely remote at best. Someone > flying a plane into a building I could easily buy, in fact it surprises me > no one tried it before (other than the B-25 accident with the Empire State > Building). > > I hope we are all still around 20 years from now to discuss this and see > where it went. Keep the archive going forever! > > -Gary > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 12:14 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Ouch > > > > > > The point of building an ABM system isn't to protect us against current > > threats -- but potential threats. If a true ICBM system fell > > into the hands > > of a hostile government (however that might happen), would you really want > > to wait 10-20 years to develop a reliable defense? The time to do it is > > now. > > > > H. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Maureen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:58 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Ouch > > > > > > At 01:47 PM 12/13/01, Corrigan wrote: > > > > >can do it all. I just don't understand why people are so opposed to a > > >program that is designed to protect us. > > > > The only way a missile defense system can protect us from current threats > > is if they aim it at post offices. We are not under threat from anybody > > with the ability to hit us with a nuclear missile. > > > > This isn't about defense, it's about lining the pockets of the companies > > that sell the missiles. > > > > If they were serious about protecting us, they'd be upgrading the > > facilities at the CDC, and taking pro-active steps to ensure the safety of > > the scientist who can assist in the creation of antidotes and > > vaccines. Have you seen the body count on them lately? > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
