>Gar Lipow wrote:
>>Firstly, I don't think any method likely to be used can match the
>>death toll of 9/11.
>Massive bio-weapons attack? Suitcase nuclear bomb? Plane crash into a
>nuclear reactor?
As I pointed out later in the post to which you are repsonding, these are possible but unlikely:
suitcase nukes and bioweapons: if they coulda they woulda. And I'm bet that precautions by countries from which they could get them have increased rather than increased. (I;m not including Anthrax because it does not spread that quickly. Massive deployement of Anthrax may up killing dozens or hundreds, not thousands).
Plane crash into nuclear reactior? It would have to be small plane because they are not going to get a big one. And while a small plane might spread some radioactive waste, I don't thing it would cause meltdown.
I still say that probabilities (unfortunately not certainties, but probabilities) are that while there are lots of way they can kill dozens, and a few they might kill hundreds, there are no easy ways left to kill thousand. (I'm talking about the anti-U.S. terrorists of course. (The U.S. not only can but will kill tens, and perhaps hundreds of thousands through starvation.)
In fact I will make a similar wager to Max. No attack by terrorists will kill anything close to a thousand people. My wager starts now, unlike Max who waits until some months after the Afghanistan winter is over. The problem is if no attack killing thouands happens, how do you know whether my explanation of Max's is the right one?
Ultimately, short term (3 years or less) prevention of terrorism will depend mostly on whether we actually do stuff that makes terrorism inside the U.S. harder to commit and easier to detect (as opposed to simply repealing the constitution).U.S. foreign policy (including wars)
will have a long term effect - but will do almost nothing in the short term. I know we agree that the current bombing is doing nothing in this regard except helping to create the next generation of anti-US terrorists.