Falstaff

how do you all know someone hasnt already tried and it was intercepted years ago...
just guess, I dare you...because it has literally happened already.

raid517

Well if it has it must have been long before my memory.

Again I guess it's about how you measure risks. The risks of dying or being seriously injured in this way remain really very small - the biggest impact as most people here have noted is purely psychological. If the goverment educates the people and tells them how best to deal with the risks, this psychological impact virtually dissapears.

If you take away the terror, you take away the terrorists biggest weapon.

This is the real road to victory.

GJ

ToshiroOC

If gay people getting married can scare the average American, then I have little doubt that radiation will scare them too.

The reason for not having those sorts of public service announcements is mainly because politicians gain more power if the populace is (get this terrified, and downplaying the dangers is much more likely to get a politician labeled as a regressive head-in-the-sand fool than get them labeled a realist.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Nicky-chan

well definitly intresting but nothing new to me. I already KNOW the goverment is curropted. I see no resone why theyd make the threat tho unless they were trying to throw ppl off so they could pass something else by without them knowing. Who knows.

__________________

Falstaff

Without the governments we already have in place and the covert activity to keep terrorists from destroying our country, you and I would not be here enjoying the internet or enjoying the freedoms we still have. The world is not fair and their are people out there trying actively to destroy us. the loss of and the interception of fissionable material is a huge problem, especially since the fall of the communism in the former soviet bloc nations.

raid517

Well perversely it may be simpler to educate people as to the real dangers of radiation and biological weapons than it would be to educate them about the dangers of gay people. (Although in some regards the tactics are similar, because the right commonly promote the idea that gay people want to invade your homes, your schools and your work place and pervert you and your children into adopting a gay life style - which again is simply untrue. But it is also very much another issue so I would prefer not to get into it here).

But with regard to the 'terror type weapons' I listed above, then some kind of basic education type program would go a long way towards defeating this fear. It doesn't mean you can't work to get rid of the terorists too - but to win this supposed conflict, you must work to defeat both. By removing the fear, you remove what is after all the terrorists primary weapon. It simply does not make sense to effectively 'work with the terrorists' to do everything in your power to make people even more afraid.

Doing a bunch of simple 'duck and cover' type ads on TV explaining the real dangers in simple terms and reassuring people of the relatively minor risks involved would go a long way towards achieving this - though as Jeff has just demonstrated above you would probably have to repeat them over and over before people would take them on board - otherwise most people will continue to believe in these exaggerated risks, despite whatever the facts might be.

I don't think the whole 'head in the sand' thing works - because really the only way to take people's head out of the sand is to tell them to not be so afraid and explain to them what the risks are - not to continually play up (or indeed promote) these risks.

But in any case I supect you are correct, insomuch that it very much does seem to serve our governments not to do this - because maintaining such high levels of fear and public paranoia does a great deal to preserve their positions of power and influence. Many people in the government look back fondly to the period of the cold war to a time when we all appeard to face a common threat - and they tend to believe that it was in some way this threat that provided a uinifying force that served to bring people together. They also see it as a time when people in general looked more keenly towards their government for leadership - a time when politicians and the government as a whole were more widely respected. They know too that in times of 'war' people will usually fall in behind their government and that they will support many extreme measures that they might not normally support in times of peace.

What better way to enhance and maintain their influence than to invent (or at least greatly exaggerate) these supposed risks - or indeed invent a war that has no real visible enemy and no forseeable prospect of an end?

GJ

flaherrc

Raid, your comments obviously come from someone who has only listened to one side of the story on Biological weapons. That is why I mentioned the books. The USSR had a huge biological weapons program, both the US and the UK did not realize how large until the fall of the Soviets. The scientists that were working the program all need jobs and security. Money talks as does years of propoganda in the USSR that the West is the enemy.

The knowledge is out there, and in the hands of the enemy. There was one scientist in Iraq with knowledge of biological weapons. That is all you need to have a biological weapons program.

While you do need to be careful in preparation, bacteria and viruses are very resulent especially genetically engineered ones. They do exist. Both the US and UK and USSR all have done genetic engineering experiments on bacteria. Eventhough you must be careful. Think about this - it only takes four to ten bacteria of the anthrax to make you sick. Ecoli that has cause death in childeren due to uncooked meat only needs three to five bacteria. The most deadly biological agents would be contagious ones. Thankfully, most contagious diseases are not deadly. There are a few and genetically engineered threats could be modified in such a way.

You mentioned the plauge. That is interesting. The plague has been contemplated as a biological weapon by releasing infected fleas onto the enemy. While you do mention specific bacteria and there vulnerabilites (cholera for one), genetically engineered bacteria could be made resiliant. The USSR has done these things - and tested them.

As I menitoned, please read the books then rebuke them and me. But until then, I believe you are the one with the falacies.

Germs
Biohazard

bob

raid517

@flaherrc I'll read them, but as I said the evidence points more to this being something that a goverment would need to organise rather than a few disperate Arabs. The problem (particularly with several of the agents you mentioned) is in designing an effective delivery system. The plague for example is spread by rats - or more exactly by their fleas - but the reason it was so deadly in the past is that it was prevelant during a period in history where issues of basic personal hygene and public health were poorly understood. There was little or no santitation, people rarely washed and there were little or no public health services.

It is hard to imagine that a modern city could ever suffer from the same problems. I mean who in their right mind would put up with an infestation of rats and fleas now? People shower and bath regularly, public health officials are paid to keep rat populations to a minimum and public health programs are in place that would undoubtedly check the advance of any such outbreak long before it became significant. That is why there hasn't been a major outbreak for the last few hundred years - because it was shortly after this time that all of these issues came to be understood and were dealt with, with increasing effectiveness though vastly improved public health and santitaion services by succesive governments up until the present day.

How in any case do you design a delivery system for rat born fleas? You would need 100's of thousands of rats - which all in all is not likely to prove (given the improved living and hygene conditions we currently enjoy) to be a very effective delivery medium.

Anthrax dispersal is another problem - since it is exactly because it is so deadly that it is so difficult to deal with. Therefore you would certainly need highly specialised facilities and highly specialised personel in order to both produce it and design an effective dispersal mechanism - that would not carry the risk of killing those who you employed to deliver it before it could reach it's target. The same is true of most infectious type diseases - because without specialised knowlege you always run the risk of killing those attempting to produce it before it ever gets a chance to get near those people you were doing your best to kill.

While Ecoli and Cholera and other bacteria type diseases might sound impressive due to their somewhat more stable nature the realtively small numbers required in order to make someone sick, the means of delivery is again problematic. Ecoli is normally spread through contaminated food - so how do you infect the entire food supply in order to make a great many people sick? Again public health programs are in place in most developed countries that would prevent this from happening. In this regard public health officials regularly check farms, factories, restaurants, hotels, supermarkets and most other major food outlets to prevent any potential source of such outbreaks from ever really becomming signifigant. Which again is why with the adoption of these public health programs, outbreaks of these kinds of diseases are likely to have only a very small impact. Cholera is another example. Cholera is most regularly spread through an infected water supply. However most water sources here in the west are treated in advance to kill off any such potential source of infection. The water that comes out of your taps (or do you call them faucets?) is not just sucked up out of some stangnant resovoir - it is cleaned and treated and checked very regularly in specialised treatment plants before it ever reaches you. The possibility of any agent of this nature reaching you through the water supply are again therefore really very small.

The same agrument could be made in most cases, since a vast amount of effort and money has been invested in the West in limiting the conditions in which a great many of these diseases are able to be effective. Public health programs, education, hygene, sanititation, vaccination, antibiotics, medical services and so on have all had a massive impact on limiting the ability of these agents to spread. The reason they remain so devastaing in Third World countries is exactly because little or none of these facilities are avaiable to them. We undoubtedly look at them and are afraid - but it does not change the fact that much of that fear is largely irrational.

Most military experts agree that as a weapon biological and chemical weapons are largely inefective. Their impact is certainly too unpredictable to be considered useful for any kind of general deployment - but that their most significant impact and the one that continues to pusuade them into retaining them in their arsenals is purely in their usefulness as a weapon of terror.

You mention too genetically engineerd diseases - and this is perhaps where we can get a little back on topic, because in this regard genetically engineered diseases really are something on an entirely different level. But so to is the level of sophistication required to produce them. Geneticallly engineered diseases that are stable, easily transporatble and that deploy an effective disperal mechanism are almost certainly something that is beyond the grasp of the average terrorsist - this very much would require large sums of money and intensive levels of research in order to achieve. Something that again may only be avaiable to various select governments with sufficient resources, training and expertise in order to make such a program practical.

But this is all something of a distraction - because while I do believe that many of the risks we are presented with are highly exaggerated, I am in no way saying that the risks from biological or chemical weapons attacks are not real.

There are various governments around the world that are capable of producing these - and of deploying them with a high level of effectiveness. The problem as I see it is with not really focusing on who these governments are - and in over playing the risk of attack from some strange invisible network of terrorists. It is the act of over playing this risk, of over stating it, of not informing the public as to the measures in place that would serve to limit the effectiveness of such weapons - of creating their own regime of terror, by constantly talking about terror, by warning people of their ever impending doom, by actively seeking to misinform people (as in the case of a dirty bomb), by not really working to defeat the terror by fighting the terror in people's minds first - it is these things that I most strongly object to.

In any case I will read the books. It would be nice however if you would return this curtresy by agreeing to look at what I have too.

You tell me to look at the argument from both sides. It might do you no harm to do likewise too.

GJ

zerodamage

You mean one like Iraq? Syria? Iran? OH wait, there are no terrorists there and have never been. Only in Florida, USA. :-/

raid517

Those are countries. And no one is saying there is no terrorists, nor that there isn't any such thing as biological weapons. As ever you are missing the point. What is being said is that there is no real underlying terrorist network threatening our respective countries - that this is the real danger that is being exaggerated - that in actual fact deploying weapons of this nature is really a very tricky thing to do, something that is generally beyond the means of the average often half educated terrorist anyway - and that really the best way to defeat the terrorists is to defeat the fear in ourselves first - because by making people less afraid (instead of more afraid as both of our governments tend to do) you take away the primary weapon that the terrorists have.

I don't know what the reference to Florida is - but if you guys think you caught someone then let's hear about it.

Perhaps you of all people would do well to consider what evidence there is (or isn't) to suggest that there is any concerted plan or network of terrorists plotting daily to attack our countries and overthrow our governments. Give me a nod and I will be happy to supply (you or anyone here) with pretty much conclusive evidence that this simply is not the case.I will in turn agree to consider any evidence to the contrary that you might have. What I wonder do you think you have to loose?

GJ

flaherrc

I think that is a very dangerous mindset to be in. That is the second time in this thread you have said something of this nature.

Unfortunately, many terrorists have exploited the education systems in both the US and the UK. The biochemist I referred to earlier working in Iraq under Sadam's regiem actually graduated from the University of Missouri in Columbia (my wife's alma matter). The terrorists who hijacked four airlines from east coast airports were bright individuals who sought training at US schools. Terrorists do reconnisance, analyze traffic patterns, pedestrian traffic, cameras and security gaurds. You don't believe when a suicide bomber runs into a disco in Israel that it is a random act, do you? Those things are planned by someone with some smarts and training - as twisted it may be.

Just because they are fanatical toward religion does not mean they are not educated. And to think there are no educated persons, ones that possess both knowledge for nukes or biological warfare, who believe that the Western civilization and all its evils need to be destroyed is dangerous and naive.

Do you actually believe that terrorism does not exist as Michael Moore states in his movie? That it is merely pumped up by governments to keep people in order? Tell that to the families of the 3000+ people who died on September 11. Tell that to the hundreds of mothers and fathers in Russia who lost their children because they went to school one day. Tell that to the hundreds of families who have lost loved ones over the decades of violence in Israel. Tell that to the victim's and families of the DC Sniper or those lost in OK City.

Maybe because terrorism kills less people than flu does in one year that it is a small threat. But it does exist. And smart people are terrorists too.

bob

Sandok

I heard some stuff from nuclear scientists saying that a dirty bomb is acutally hamrless (at least the radiation spilt from them) and that USA, Russia and all did testing on it as a weapon but discarded the idea cuz it was totally useless....

And who here still thinks russia is evil? What is wrong with you? Seriously, no country is evil. Good and bad does not exist! Nothing is that crystal clear!

CaptinSxb

Was it not one of the iraqi officials that used a bio agent to kill 400,000 people in his own country? But i guess it was just a fluke and he managed to get it right on the first try and didnt record any of that work that he did and didnt getfunding from his government, right?

You say you need comlex handling devices? Would that be sorta like that people that strap bombs to themselves thinking that when they die they get 72 virgins in heaven?

Raid your looking at this as if we are dealing with some highly civilizied country that is going to get all these things through legal channels. Try thinking of it as if you spent your whole life growing up to hate a specifc gender/race/country and being told that there is no greater honor than to kill someone from that group. No to mention your family will be raped and tortured if you refuse.

__________________
A64-3200; x800xl; a couple other things ; and a floppy drive

raid517

The Iraqi bio chemist you refer to was certainly involved in producing and designing biological and chemical weapons (at least we can agree that during the 80's she was). However she certainly had access to a very large budget and considerable resources that enabled her to do this (not to mention some people assert that she may have had some degree of CIA assistance - since the primary target for much of those weapons during this period was the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war - when Iran was very near the top of the list of America's most hated enemies). It was hardly the homebrew and fake hairspray type operation that many more alarmist sources claim is possible. It required considerable planning, resources and operational/logistical execution in order to achieve. Less perhaps than a nuclear program - but still not insignificant by any measure.

Nonetheless as I said this is really very much a distraction from the point being made The point being made is that there is little or no evidence for the existance of a large concerted international terrorist network of the kind commonly proposed by the Bush and Blair leadership.

The September the 11th attacks were carried out by one small fairly disperate and unusually extremist group inside Afganistan. They had little or no connection with the other Arab groups who existed there during this period and indeed were regarded as something of a maveric entity even among the Arabs who were in the country, either working with or fighting against the Taliban (depending on where their political affiiations lay). In total 'Osama's Army' consisted of no more than about 30 peoplel. (30 people who incidentally can all be named dated and identified) - and in this regard it rated as only a tiny faction within all of the various factions that existed within the country at that time. So hardly the vast sprawling network of terrorists that our governments regularly tell us that we should all be so scared of.

No one is denying that such weapons exist - or that terrorism itself may exist - what is being said is that there is no vast network of terrorists with sleeper cells in every country, with a vast and complex infractructure capable of producing a bemusing array of weapons of mass destruction, with one guy at the head of it all organising and planning attacks from some sophisticated cave network in the Tora Bora mountains of Afganistan. What is being said is that that is the real big lie. That really the September the 11th attacks were just the work of a few very determinied extremists who were indeed largely working alone.

Sure it takes planning - but not vast amounts of planning. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to strap a bomb on themselves and walk into a busy market place in Tel Aviv and go blow up a few dozen civilians now does it?

Similarly with the September the 11th attacks, there is often a lot of talk about the sophistication of the tactics employed by the hyjackers.

But for me this always begs the question, what sophistication? They managed to get into the country fairly easily. Those hijackers who were selected for pilot training didn't need any special qualifications to do so - all they need to do was to be able to pay the flight schools to train them - the actual hijacks themselves were conducted with the aid of nothing more leathal than a few flimsy plastic box cutters - so clearly this can hardly be described as the WMDs that you appear to be so worried about.

The problem for the US administration at the time was in admiting just how easy it had been for such relative amatures to hit the US as hard as they did. In order to save embarrasment on the home and international front and to avoid giving the impression that America was weak they played up the degree of sophitication of the hijackers and of the degree of planning and execution that was required in order to execute the attacks. This was when the idea of an international terrorist network was first born. (There was certainly little or no talk of an international terrorist network before then). The idea of an international terrorist network, with highly bright people running it and executing its plans, with educated and very motivated people supplying intelligence and with a large number of people attached to it (including some governments) who were so downright smart that they were capable of producing some of the most terrifying weapons the world has ever known, was certainly an easier idea to sell, than the idea that America could be so wounded by what otherwise might be regarded as a bunch of very plain drop outs and no hopers.

There is an old Japanese martial arts phrase that roughly translated says something along the lines that the fitness of a people can only be guaged when compared against the quality of their enemies. If their enemies are weak and insignificant - then so to by implication must they be. This very much appears to be one of those instances.

In any case it may indeed be dangerous ignore the risks of terrorism and WMDs completely - but given a full appreciation of what these dangers are - it would certainly seem that this danger is much less imposing than many in our governments would have us believe.

I have never seen any of Michael Moor's stuff so I can't really comment. I've heard and read a lot about it, but Mr Moor seems a bit too partizan for my tastes. He aligned himself too closely with the democratic party - which I always think is a mistake for a jounalist - insomuch that aligning yourself with any political party is likely to affect your objectivity. I have access to some other much more compeling data anyway, so who needs Micheal Moor?

I do not say that terrorism does not exist - indeed I have never said this - the only thing I am saying is that there is certainly no concerted vast network of terrorsts plotting feveroushly to attack our coutries, overthrow our govenments and invade our homes and our lives. Even the term Al Qaeda is a CIA invention. In Arabic Al Quada simly means 'the base'. The term first originated after the CIA interrogated some people in the 90's and they were told about where Osama Bin Laden's base in Afganistan was. They simply opted to misinterprit this and sell it back to their political bosses as if it were the name of some concerted organisation - when in truth it didn't really mean anything very much - except the place that the informant claimed to have last seen Bin Laden.

If chemical and biological weapons were practical for such people to use, why haven't we been attacked already? History (and terrorism such as it is) didn't just begin 3 years ago. So how many times in the last 60 years have we been attacked? Indeed how many terrorist attacks have there been against America in the last 30 years or so? For America the average is only about 1 every 3 or 4 years. Which all in all, hardly warrants the degree of fear that they produce.

[quoteMaybe because terrorism kills less people than flu does in one year that it is a small threat. But it does exist. And smart people are terrorists too.[/quote]

No flu is statistically far more deadly than terrorsm. Last year something like 64,000 people died fromm flu realted illnesses, compared to exactly zero from terrorism. Indeed even crossing the street in front of your house is statistically much more dangerous than terrorism. In 2003 something in the region of 42,000 people died in America as a result of a road accident, with something like 16% of them dying within about 300 yards from their own home. Again compared to deaths from terrorism - even this 16% far outweighs the number of deaths caused by terrorsm (which again is zero) in the same year. Indeed it even considerably outweighs the number of people killed during the Word Trade Centre attacks themselves.

Nonetheless it would be silly to ignore the risk that terrorism does pose - but in many ways this has already been addressed. Prior to the September the 11th attacks, the internal US security system was in a total mess. (Which is another reason this imaginary threat was invented - if for no other reason than to disguise the extent of the blunders that were made). But by tightening up on internal controls, by modernising the security at airports and places of public and strategic importance, by giving extra resources to the police and the FBI to investigate potential threats, the risks of another attack have been much diminished. The problem is that George W. and here in the UK our own Tony Blair have taken this process entirely too far - so that it is now possible for them to lock people up without charge and to suspend their civil rights almost indefinately. That's the part I find hard to take.

A lot of these other issues you refer to are pretty much unconnected events. Again no one is saying that terorsim doesn't exist, the only thing that is very difficult to believe is that any vast interconnected newtork of terrorsts exists. In Russia the terrorsts are generally all Chechens - so nothing to do with Middle East terrorism, the violence in Israel is pretty much a two way street, with the Israelis hurting the Palistinians just as much as the Palistinans are hurting them, the DC sniper was just a simple psychopath - there was no known links between him and terrorism of any kind - let alone any kind of international terrorism.

This is about understanding the numbers and weighing up the statistics. When you do this you do tend to get the impression that the actual danger of terrorism is far less significant than a lot of people want us to believe.

Best regards

GJ

zerodamage

I would love some of what you are smoking. I would also like nothing more than to be totally detached from reality. You seem to have forgotten 9-11 (So many of you leftists have for the sake of making it easier to Hate the U.S. and Bush). You seem to have forgotten the attacks in Australia and Spain. Most importanly, you seem to have forgotten the Palistinian terrorists who Saddam fed money to the families of, encouraging them to do this. The next step was supplying WMD which Saddam had (and may have done just what you said never happens, he may have given them to Terrorists). So please come back to reality.

raid517

I pretty much am very firmly in reality thanks. I didn't forget Spain, I didn't forget 9/11 - indeed I haven't forgotten anything at all. As I have said perhaps 10 times already - even though typically you have chosen to ignore it - no one is saying that terrorism as a phenomenon doesn't exist - only that there is no underlying vast structure tying all of these events together, that there is no general command mechanism - no mafia type organisation called Al Quada (which again given the literal interpritation of what this actually means is pretty nonsensical and which is almost undoubtedly itself a CIA invented name) tying all of the events together. These were all seperate unconnected acts often conducted by only a very few of a very few of the more extreme elements within our societies. All in all they represent only a tiny fraction of what is already a very small body of opinion within the school of Islam. They almost certainly do not pose the level of military threat commonly proposed by our governments - they have little or no prospect whatsoever of ever having the capacity to harm us in any signicant way, or to overthrow our governments - and what is more they have little prospect of ever having the practical, intellectual or financial resources (I doubt even Osama's alleged few millions would be enough) to formulate an effective WMD program against anyone. As for 'what I'm smoking' if you really do want some it's called 'proof' - a concept which I know you are uncomfortable with. I have what amounts to pretty much cast iron evidence as to the accuracy of much of what I am saying. Of course I am sure despite however irrefutable it may be, you would still want to designate it as a part of some leftist plot (as that really does seem to be your only answer to most things these days) but I have little doubt that you would have virtually zero capacity to find any proof of of your own to counter it. Perhaps you might just about manage a few derogatory comments such as the above - but really this hardly qualifies as any credible kind of debunking of any of the main points I have made. I would be happy to work through each of these on a point by point basis with you - providing clarification and clear evidence wherever needed - and would be happy to provide counter arguments to any objections you might raise, providing of course that these arguments are not just founded on your opinion and that you can supply similar standards of evidence to back your own claims up.

Of course I can't prove anything if people here refuse to even look at the evidence - which I guess all in all must be very convienient for you. But for anyone who does want to look, as I have also said several times now, just let me know and Iwill give you all the evidence you could ever possibly need.

The choice is yours.

GJ

zerodamage

LMAO!! There is NO Al-Qaida. LOL. Like I said in my last post, I want what you are smoking.

raid517

Well I already made that offer. As prediced the only response you could manage was some half assed meaningless retort - with no particular content and no viable response to any of the points being made.

You want proof? All you have to do is ask.

GJ

RDoggy

My retort was voteing Bush. Just imagine all the lectures we would have gotten from people like Hillary Clinton and Madeline Halfbright . But we need to keep A few liberals like
raid517 around. Just so people can see who they are. His opinions are in the minority. Just look at the election returns. And really what good would it do to llisten to a bunch of losers.

Sandok

He's right for once you know. Alquaeda was made up after 911 as a "web of terror with unbelievable power" but this never had or did exist! He's totally right, even though I hate to admit it

raid517

Well perhaps I should remind you that there are still 48% of the American population who did not vote for Bush. So this by no measure qualifies as a 'vast majority.' Indeed it is within a good statistical margin of error so that it can be pretty much classed as half of all Americans who's views are not currently represented. Moreover opinion in the rest of the world is still very firmly against Bush - where polls showed that if everyone could have voted in the US elections (not that I'm saying they should) something like 86% of them would have voted firmly against Bush. So again your perception of what constitutes a looser is a little warped. Furthermore Europe remains above all pretty firmly on the left of the political spectrum - so from my own perspective we here haven't really lost anything. This was a US election, our choices here are not the same as yours. I feel sorry for the half of the American population who's views will not be fairly represented - but at the end of the day that really is an American issue. Providing we here in my own country are not overty affected by what the US government chooses to do and we remain a fairly liberal society ourselves, I can pretty much deal with it.

Nonetheless this isn't really a political matter. The fact's and evidence I have been alluding to all of this time have no real poltical affiliation attached to them. We are talking about names, dates, times, specific people, official doccumentation, interviews with ex intelligence personel, actual video footage - things that when looked at from any angle - despite whatever side of the political spectrum they may be viewd from would be virtually impossible for anyone to refute.

Right now all you have heard is from the prosecution. Imagine that that is the way your court system worked? Imagine someone accused you of murder - or any crime for that matter - and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - you were never allowed to present your case for the defence? This isn't entirely a political scenario. It can however be described as horrifically unjust. Right now that is the angle frojm which you are judging the evidence so far presented to you. So without really seeing the evidence, without judging the story from both sides of the argument, how can you say that you are certain that you know what you have been told so far is accurate? All you have heard to date is the case for the prosecution. What if the case for the defense was so overwhelming that it had the potential to pretty much comprehensively destroy all of the main points the prosecution had so far made? If you were in a court of law and had been accused of some form of wrong doing (or lying as I am commonly accused of by some people here) and had important evidence you knew would be all but guranteed to clear your name, wouldn't you want that evidence to be heard?

As I said the choice is yours.

GJ

Jitter

Radiation at low levels it can harmful even if you see no immediate effects especially if you inhale it. It may not kill you directly, but it can increase your chances of developing cancer and such. Are you saying if you were in an area where a dirty bomb was detonated you wouldnt be worried about your health at all??....I highly doubt it..... If you forget already weapons grade anthrax was already released/mailed so whos to say other types of biological weapons cant get out? I think you are being very naive in your views and unerestimating the will of extremists to destroy free countries. Im not saying people should be living in fear, but you cant live in
denial either. If someone told you that terrorists had a plan to hjack planes in the United States fly them into various buildings, and bring down both twin towers, you probably wouldnt of believed that either.

__________________
Sony Vaio PCV-RX670
P4 1.8ghz
XP Pro SP2
1 GB PC2100 RAM
ATI All in Wonder 9700 pro
Audigy 2 ZS
Aquamark ~29,500
3dMark03 ~ 5,000

raid517

First you do not 'inhale' radiation, radiation is not a gas - although confusingly for some perhaps there is such a thing as a radioactive gas in the form of radeon. Radiation however does not require a gas in order to spread - so whether you breath it in or not is largly irrelevant.

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. The effects of any such explosion would serve to have the effect of spreading the radeological material over a large area. The wider you spread this material the lower the levels of radioactive concentration is produced - and concequently the lower the levels of potential exposure. It is a very simple logic and not at all difficult to grasp. The problem as has been noted above is that many people do not understand how radation works or even what it is.

There are other kinds of risks - but largely the problems that exist are often associated with a misconception of how deadly these risks are.

The main problem is that while these weapons would (if they were used) have the primary function of being a weapon of terror - the people responsible for spreading the majority of this terror are the government themselves. If the goverment undertook a program of public education to explain what the risks really were you could do much to defeat this ignorance and fear - and in so doing you would go a long way to defeating one of the primary weapons in any terrorists arsenal - which is the terror and irrational panic that such attacks would produce. That is the real issue at hand. Why are our goverments playing up this fear instead of working hard to actively to defeat it?

GJ