From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:33:54 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Net and Terrorism.
In-Reply-To: <ae0077da07021004d4c7@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960703233159.124I-100000@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 12:14 AM 7/4/96, snow wrote:
> >     Military troops can best be protected by 3 seperate methods:
> >     2) When they _are_ exposed, let them fight the fuck back. Rules of
> >        engagment are simple. When fired on, shoot to kill. If the shot
> >        comes from a building, take out the building. If from a crowd,
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "Colonel, the mission was accomplished. Apparently the sniper was firing
> from the 34th floor, so we simply took out the building. There was minor
> collateral damage, of course."

	I guess that part of the problem is that I was in the military, 
and while I was never actually under fire, there was always the possibility,
and after hereing (from people who where there) the silly ass ROE, let's 
just say that when some one is trying to kill you it is nice to be able 
to do something about it. 
	There is something to the theory of peer pressure. I would maintain 
that there is a difference between responding to immediate threats and   
long term supression. 

> Such overreaction to terrorist events is often precisely what a terrorist
> wants, as I've explained a couple of times.

	Sometimes the terrorists are relying on exactly the opposite, a lack
of immediate reaction. This makes the government look impotent. 

> >> >A third option is quite simply to buy as much of it as possible.
> >> No, wouldn't work. As with the "War on (Some) Drugs," all this does is
> >> raise the price a bit, actually making it a more tempting market for many
> >> to get into.
> >
> >        If the US were to offer Russia $3 billion (or whatever)
> >in a one time take it or leave it for their entire chemical weapon stock,
> >it might get the soviet shit off the market. The nuclear stuff is a little
> >easier to store (I think) and it would be a harder sell.
> 
> >        I agree tho' that it isn't possible to buy out the market.
> 
> Then why do you float ideas such as buying out the Soviet arsenal if you
> think it isn't possible?

     Market v.s. Arsenel. Difference between buying a car dealership and 
buying the Big 6 Auto Makers. I was simply refering to removing the 
soviet stocks from the market. That would force the prices up a but, 
might get some private dealers into the market, but I wouldn't think that
this particular market is all that big. I may be wrong about the size of
the market.


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com