dsk wrote: > > >> >> > > do not live in a >place that is a likely target. > Unfortuantely John works bang in the middle of the most importnat parts of London. i worry about it all the time.
> >Of course, no one is safe anywhere. > In the case of a nuke strike, i agree. i think tho in the case of a terroist attcak, out lying places or counrty places and not likely to be hit. The big cities, where the money is and where lots o people are and where the most damage can be inflicted, will be the targets, I would think. I wuld have thought that people are not really the target-the things that cost hige amoutns of money and will cause the most disruption are. Like with us going tobomb Afghanistan and Iraq. The poeple are not the tartget and the fact so many get killed is well' too bad' huh? In the case of all out nuking, I hope to be right in line for it. who'd wnat to survive to later die slowly and in agony? I am still haging on to the idea that no one would be so stupid but with the 'leaders' we now have, that is increasingly seeming to be a very childish idea! so i knit and read and write email and think fuck it! what can i do? > The cities, though, are more >vulnerable. More people in one area. More bang for the buck, so to speak. > >Debra Shea
