[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Serbian nuclear fuel



Bill, I think my concluding remark should have given you a clue : "Are our concerns misplaced ? Going by the 9-11 experience, probably yes."
 
In your list below, please add "e." : misplaced concerns need to be changed so that they are "placed correctly" in order to minimise the danger of future attacks.
 
( hint: ignoring misplaced concerns increases the chances of another successful terrorist attack on the scale of 9-11).
 
...and no, I don't think I'm "providing assistance to terrorists on how to be more effective" -- terrorists are, unfortunately, not deaf, dumb & blind, nor is a change from a truck bomb to an oil tanker such a great leap of ingenuity as you appear to be giving me credit for.
 
Jaro 
-----Original Message-----
From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@dteenergy.com]
Sent: Monday August 26, 2002 9:20 AM
To: Franta, Jaroslav
Cc: Radsafe (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Serbian nuclear fuel

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, what is the purpose of this message?

a.  Provide assistance to terrorists on how to be more effective?

b.  Convince the public that, since a nuclear weapon is "only" 18 kT, while an oil tanker has more potential destructive power, fissile material in the hands of terrorists is obviously not a concern?

c.  Something I overlooked?

d.  None  / all of the above?

(hint:  Arguing that something else is worse is NOT a good way to sell nuclear technology to the public.)

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose it's about trust.
Curies forever.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com