On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Brian D Williams wrote:
> Actually they did an aerosol deployment of anthrax spores around the
> parliment building, I think you're refering to the Sarin attack.
The yield of anthrax spores is low, but harvesting it is not rocket
science, it's just a little vacuum cleaner with a microfilter baggie.
Their shelf life is impressive, so all you need is scaling up, and/or
patience.
> I believe you're refering to their Sarin attack on the subway,
> rather than anthrax.
Yes.
> I was only refering to the resources a dictator has versus the
> basement labs of your average terrorist.
True, but would he risk his precious nukes by using SCUDS or similiar as
delivery vehicles? Would he risk having the major targets of his country
to be rapidly obliterated, thus removing his power basis? It might happen,
but it doesn't seem likely. I'd rather suspect small or medium groups of
fanatics doing it, who have typically more limited resources, and no
specific physical location, and who would gain most by acting in stealth.
> China is going to increase it's arsenal regardless, smaller nations
> won't have the resources.
I'm not sure China would, and it would seem that it would be the polite
thing to do to not do something which will provoke them into ramping up.
If they start ramping up, you can always do it yourself.
> No U.S. government is going to do this, by the way this is the ICBM
> scenario. ;)
No, shelters are useful against fallout, and also against biological and
chemical agents, which are typically slow enough to propagate to be
catched by sniffers.
And, of course, shelters will be very useful if somebody really decides to
nuke you the ICBM way, or if there's a medium space rock heading your way.
> In the event of an ICBM attack you think shelters are more
> effective/ less expensive while I think that ABM's are the better
> choice. (actually I'd like both but can't afford it).
We can't afford both, so we have to limit ourselves to the option
providing optimum ROI.
> You think a suitcase nuke or megatruck bomb is more likely, but in
> this case I think shelters are useless.
Yes, but fallout, chem and bio will do nicely, and of course if you have
them, you'll have the ICBM delivery option covered, too.
-- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204/">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBMTO : N48 10'07'' E011 33'53'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204
57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT