02-28-2003, 08:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-28-2003, 08:29 PM by Occhidiangela.)
that was the word I was trying to recall earlier.
I think that what spawned the SFC's letter was some of the paranoia in Suburbia. His letter got passed around, after the latest duct taping idiocy that got so much media atttention, as an alternative point of view.
Having had to work through a weapons exercise over 20 years ago wherein we plotted how much of San Francisco would turn into rubble based on Kiloton versus Megaton yields on MIRVs and other such lovely weapons, I had to raise an eyebrow with how blithely he addressed the problem of radius of action. I guess the unspoken point is: if you are too near to Ground Zero, no worries, you are dead (from over pressure and flying shrapnel if nothing else) before you know what hit you. I think the assumption he makes is that a device that is both easy to get one's hands on and is also portable enough to use in the infamous "briefcase nuke" model is the limit of the threat and thus likely to be in the kilo ton, versus megaton, yield class. Not sure I would agree with that entirely, but I understand the thought behind it.
I also thought that his most important point might not even have been intentional, and was in the last sentence.
Nukes and chemical attacks work on your body.
Terror works in your mind.
I think that what spawned the SFC's letter was some of the paranoia in Suburbia. His letter got passed around, after the latest duct taping idiocy that got so much media atttention, as an alternative point of view.
Having had to work through a weapons exercise over 20 years ago wherein we plotted how much of San Francisco would turn into rubble based on Kiloton versus Megaton yields on MIRVs and other such lovely weapons, I had to raise an eyebrow with how blithely he addressed the problem of radius of action. I guess the unspoken point is: if you are too near to Ground Zero, no worries, you are dead (from over pressure and flying shrapnel if nothing else) before you know what hit you. I think the assumption he makes is that a device that is both easy to get one's hands on and is also portable enough to use in the infamous "briefcase nuke" model is the limit of the threat and thus likely to be in the kilo ton, versus megaton, yield class. Not sure I would agree with that entirely, but I understand the thought behind it.
I also thought that his most important point might not even have been intentional, and was in the last sentence.
Nukes and chemical attacks work on your body.
Terror works in your mind.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete