On 22 Aug 2002 at 13:39, rhinoceros wrote:
>
> [Joe Dees]
> And when isthe 'proper' time to panic? After the mushroom cloud
> rises? How much better to forfend that possibility; even if uncertain,
> it is far too devastating a possibility to risk its actualization.
>
> [rhinoceros]
> Joe, has it occured to you that while you are busy with Saddam someone
> else in South America is secretly preparing to deliver the mushroom
> cloud on NYCity? You never know.
>
> [Jake] Yeah, we better invade South America.
>
> [Joe Dees]
> We'd better attend to the genuine threats of which we know, rather
> than making fake ones up in a futile attempt to score rhetorical
> points.
>
> [rhinoceros]
> But the Saddam threat is also just a possibility. What if a colleague
> of Bin Laden supported by huge funds has established an underground
> laborary under the Andes? Would you risk caught in surprise and the
> mushroom cloud delivered upon NYCity? It would surely be too late to
> regret then.
>
> [Joe Dees]
> Yeah, and what if those dwarfs busily fellating unicorns beneath the
> mountains of the moon were also constructing interplanetary ICBM's,
> ayy? I speak of genuine, authentic, substantial, concrete and real
> possibilities, not those whioch may be considered as a sliver over
> zero probability simply because statistically, no logical possibility
> can be absolutely discounted. Let's deal with the overwhelmingly more
> likely.
>
> [rhinoceros]
> How likely is "more likely". When it was pointed out that your
> arguments about Saddam's threats, actions, and mental state could not
> support your conclusion that Saddam was going to deliver a nuclear
> strike on the USA, you replied that you just had to make sure that the
> nuclear mushroom would not rise above New York.
>
Actually, his past history eminently supports my position that he is fully
capable of just such an action.
>
> Well, how can you be sure that someone else is not secretly preparing
> to deliver the mushroom upon the heads of the inhabitants of New York
> City, causing unimagible destruction to them and grief and pain to
> their relatives and friends, and all this as a result of an
> inconsiderate attitude of denialism.
>
I cannot be, but it is important to deal with the very real threrats of
which we are aware, rather than succumb to a terminal 'analysis
paralysis' simply because there remains the bare logical possibility that
there are threats of which we are not aware (although we should look
for those, too). The possibility of a second threat is no logical grounds
not to act to forfend the first.
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2002 board on
> Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=26194>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:20 MDT