Your assumption is that a terrorist would need to build the system from scratch.
That's hardly the case, and not even the concern. What if Saudi Arabia, with all of its billions, fell into the hands of the fanatics in that country? What then? Do you think MAD or détente would have any meaning to them? As we've seen with Bin Laden, even very rich men can violently hate the U.S. And there are ICBMs to be purchased in the world, theoretically, and not improbable. Why wait until either of these two scenarios are a reality before doing something to protect against them? H. -----Original Message----- From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 2:01 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: Ouch At the same time, given how long a government had to work with those systems, with considerably more money and expertise available, and the systems were general failures, its a fair bet that a terrorist group could not do much better, given the lack of infrastructure, and expertise. Remember this IS rocket science. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 3:37 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Ouch > > > It's not a logically sustainable premise to say that Iraqi > scuds didn't > work, so therefore any future weapons they might develop > won't work either. > > Our weapons usually don't work at first, either. > > H. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 7:16 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Ouch > > > You still need the infrastructure, the personnel and the > equipment. Its much > cheaper and more assured to take an LNG tanker and blow it up > in New York or > San Francisco harbours. A terrorist ICBM is merely laughable. > Consider how > often the Iraqi Scuds disintegrated shortly after launch- only one or > actually managed to made it to target. > > larry > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > ColdFusion/Web Developer > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > EBStor.com > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > tel: (703) 393-7930 > fax: (703) 393-2659 > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > http://www.pacel.com > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > -- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 2:38 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Ouch > > > > > > I think mere millions would do it. > > > > H. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Benjamin Falloon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 9:52 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Ouch > > > > > > > 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
