> You wrote:
> Apparently the American embassies in Africa are not as security
A truck bomb doesn't care. Very easy to park across the street, assuming
you've got a large enough truck, and blow an entire block to
hell. But the point is well taken--in Europe during the past few
decades there have been scads of terrorist attacks from homegrown terror
groups (See: Any organization referring to itself as a "Red Brigade") African
security threats tend to be in the form of street
demonstrations. Terrorist strikes can't be stopped easily--if all else
fails, the bad guys can borrow someone from the IRA to teach them how
to set up remote-controlled homemade mortars. Not too effective at
causing mass casualties, but with nerve gas warheads...
> walk away. On another poiint, what was this CIA operation about that
CIA operation? Heh. Never heard of it--foreign journalists are either
much better informed, or given to more loony speculation about what the CIA
does than Americans. Take Bahrain, for instance. The Akhbar
Al-Khalij printed the following question in regards to Miss Lewinsky.
"Is she a bait dropped by the CIA to damage the picture of the president
because he crossed the red line?" Given that sort of international picture of
the CIA, foreigners are rather ready to blame anything and everything on a
"CIA Plot". Feh. The CIA can't organize a buffet line (True! Of course, story
was related to me by a fellow Southern Baptist, and we have very high
standards for buffet lines. We're the only denomination that considers fried
chicken a sacrament.) much less some of the antics they are credited for.
Besides, blaming this on a CIA operation "stirring up" the Egyptian Islamic
Jihad would be too much like saying State Department deserved to have it's
employees blown to bits because another branch of the US Government was
rendering assitance to a friendly government (Egypt) in tracking down some
murderous thugs, likely at their own request. Remember, this is the outfit
that for fun uses machine guns on busloads of tourists.
> On the point of SG2 scenarios and tying in with something that was
I tend to think of terrorism in the 22nd century as largely a function of the
aftermath of planetary conquest. Why? Because the Big Boys on the block seem
less constrained in retaliation by some of the picky hangups the US &
Europeans seem to have today. If the LLAR set off bombs in the NAC, I see them
as responding in serious force like the
Brits did during the last century--"punitive actions" involving naval
gunboats and army flying columns rampaging through the offending nation's
country. But on a planet which was invaded, at least some degree of guerilla
resistance would be expected, even if it is minor
and short-lived.
> You wrote:
> A friend of mine in Texas was telling me recently that you can now
I can make chlorine gas in my bathroom. I've seen it done accidentally. The
problem is that most of this stuff is fairly basic chemistry or biology.
Anthrax can be found in any school of Vetrinary Medicine. It's primarily a
sheep fever. Banning it would be like banning Ammonium Nitrate. Kinda makes
agriculture difficult.
> At 12:09 10/08/98 -0500, you wrote:
> to set up remote-controlled homemade mortars. Not too effective at
A friend of mine in Texas was telling me recently that you can now mail order
the ingredients for Anthrax. There were a few programs about
bio/chemical warfare on BBC recently. One lunatic they interviewed had
written a book on how to make chemical weapons in your own kitchen. He didn't
see anything wrong about what he was doing at all.
Not to mention the S.African attempts to introduce infertility into the black
population during the 70s and 80s.
Can you imagine bio weapons in 200 years? Gene weapons designed to attack over
a period of time and perhaps only certain genetic types. Forget your
starships and ground trooops. Just drop bio-agent into the water supply
of a colony and 10 years later they cease to exist. Or are severely weakened.
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> A truck bomb doesn't care. Very easy to park across the street,
It was parked in a parkade next door, and people multiple blocks away were
injured.... incredible destructive potential.
Terrorist strikes can't be stopped easily--if all else
> fails, the bad guys can borrow someone from the IRA to teach them how
Of course, we've seen how accurate they are with mortars (remember when they
tried to pick off Maggie Thatcher)? But Nerve Gas or Bioweapons make a whole
new game.
> CIA operation? Heh. Never heard of it--foreign journalists are
Yes (in general, not this case) and yes. Although lots of yanks like to
speculate about the CIA too.
foreigners are rather ready to blame
> anything and everything on a "CIA Plot". Feh.
Of course, they want you to think they're inept.... (heh heh)
> I tend to think of terrorism in the 22nd century as largely a function
> of the aftermath of planetary conquest. Why? Because the Big Boys on
> the block seem less constrained in retaliation by some of the picky
Don't totally agree. Terrorism might be the result of long running conflict
(esp on a colony world occupied by more than one nation) but if you think
about it, the reason we can't retribute against these b*st*rds with nukes is
we aren't often very positive who did it, how to get a hold of them, etc. The
same will be true in the future.
Tom.
> At 12:09 10/08/98 -0500, you wrote:
Snip a whole bunch about terrorism
> Can you imagine bio weapons in 200 years? Gene weapons designed to
Yeah and just watch as your carefully bio-engineered vectors run amok in
the natural population replicating and mutating as they go. Sure you could
design in safeguards like shorter lifespans or 'self-destruct' on
signal, however, given a population of organisms spontaneous genetic chnge
will
occur, and that change will seems to occur faster in micro-organisms
that go through many short generations.
OK so I guess what I'm saying is Biological weapons, albeit potentially
devastatingly powerful, are a double-edged sword unless VERY carefully
controlled. IMO I would much rather use chemical agents than biological ones,
that is unless you want to render the place uninhabitable, then the killer bug
is your best friend.
BTW I once got offered a job working with animal viruses, OK so not as nasty
but the level of containment required definately put me off, goodness
only knows wht working with potential bio-weapons grade viruses are
like. That's one installation I'd definately put out in space a loooong way
from any inhabited planets!
Stuart spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> BTW I once got offered a job working with animal viruses, OK so not
And then send the Colonial Marines in to deal with experiments gone
bad.....
Grin. :)
Tom.
I don't have the slightest idea of what your talking about.
: )
Jon
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> Stuart spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> I don't have the slightest idea of what your talking about.
Nuke 'em from orbit, that's the only way to be sure!
> At 20:13 10/08/98 -0400, you wrote:
SNIP
> Stuart spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Stuart Murray
On the virus topic, a mate of mine went to his doctor last year, feeling a bit
under the weather. The doc was very interested to hear that he was working on
baculoviruses (which only infect insects and the like), and said that they'd
better check that it wasn't a baculovirus infection. Andy said he was pretty
sure it wasn't. The doc duly went into the standard "just let us be the judge
of that, young fellow" routine, then asked "What makes you
think it _isn't_ a baculovirus infection?"
"Well, I haven't climbed a tree and liquefied..." said Andy.