"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...


And yes, I do know that of which I speak. I was grounded for three
months
after 9/11 because of the massive BOS-NYC-DC TFRs that no one cared to
explain.

TFRs that were not reasonable, that were not justified, and should have
been
criticized loudly. Inasmuch as you sit around claiming that they *were*
reasonable, you deserved to be grounded.

Let me put it to you this way: how many people three years ago thought we
would make it through to today with not a single domestic attack?

Here's the real problem: the government can't really afford to tell us
everything it knows that decisions are based upon. So we're left to argue in
an atmosphere of highly-politicized misinformation. The TFRs were probably
an extreme over-reaction but sometimes these things are clear only in
hindsight.

From my perspective, the one possible benefit to a Kerry administration
might be to reduce the level of mistrust that's out there, though I suspect
the fever-swamps of the right might just trade places with the Michael Moore
left and indulge themselves in equally ludicrous persecution fantasies. In
WWII the country was effectively united 100% on this issue of winning the
war. Today it is not and the lack of inter-party trust is a key faultline
there, that poses a great threat to our ability to respond effectively.

If we get hit again at home, and with the election right around the
corner
there's plenty of reason to be on guard, we might lose everything.

Everything? That seems a little extreme. How, exactly, do you suggest
that
we'd lose literally everything? Near as I can tell, we'd lose very
little.
Our government is reasonably well protected from problems even when the
"top
brass" is killed. Frankly, while I can't stand to think of anyone being
killed, sometimes I think we could benefit from losing the entire top
echelon of government so we could start over. I certainly don't believe
we'd lose everything, or even close to everything.

Well, it all depends on magnitude. A dirty bomb that renders a large part of
a major city uninhabitable, or a chemical attack that kills into the
thousands, could be enormously destabilizing to a host of tightly
interconnected systems. The economy would be devastated as it's just now
recovering from 9/11, and this could cause major issues in the global
economy. The price of oil could surge even more, which digs the hole deeper.
Exchange rates could go wacky and upset all kinds of arrangements. A global
depression is a very real possibility.

No, OK, this is not "everything," perhaps I am being a little hyperbolic,
but I think you're being far too blithe about the cost of the kind of
destabilization such an attack entails.

And of course, if we did lose a significant part of the government, or a
very large number of civilians, we could be looking at a lot more war than
just Iraq. To paraphrase an old Navy man, the US has not yet begun to fight.
If the people of this country got well and truly *****ed off* and were
willing to really commit to a no-holds-barred war, well, I shudder to
consider the consequences. The US has a very potent martial streak that has
not yet been fully awakened by the GWOT. Another big attack could shift the
national mood in unexpected directions, some of which would prove very
unpleasant for the sandier parts of the world.

Of course, if you think the whole terrorism thing is a big lie ginned up by
Karl Rove to get Shrub elected, there's probably no point in discussing the
issue further.

Best,
-cwk.