Eric argues that the consequences of five nuclear bombs exploding in the U.S. would be so catastrophic that it would constitute a threat to the ongoing existence of the U.S. In response, I have suggested that the resources available to the U.S. make it unlikely that the U.S. would collapse and disappear. On Eric's account: - over 14 million people would be immediately killed or suffer burns. Many more would begin to develop radiation sickness and cancers - the probable *loss* of command-and-control, mass casualties that will have to be treated in an unorganized response by hospitals on the periphery, as well as other expected chaotic outcomes from inadequate administration in a crisis."* - shut-down of borders, elimination of civil liberties, collapse of the US economy, and nuclear retaliation, possibly on all "usual suspects" - a massive urban evacuation that could paralyze the U.S. interstate highway system." While I would argue with some of the specific claims Eric provides - the 14 million number is much higher than most of the estimates I have seen - I would also point out that these claims only support the argument that a terrorist attack using multiple nuclear weapons would inflict devastating damage and cause chaos in the aftermath. What is missing is some sort of argument that the various political and social institutions that constitute the United States would not only be subjected to incredible pressure but would be damaged beyond repair. Such a collapse is possible if, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, a different government is established with the aim of completely restructuring the political and social structures of the nation, or, like the former Yugoslavia, there are longstanding fault lines along which the nation fractures and divides. However, I think the U.S. is more like Britain, which could survive tremendous loss of life and damage to cities, because political and social institutions were sufficiently robust. I am not trying to minimize the terror and destruction groups like al Qaeda could inflict on countries like the U.S., but I think it is also necessary to keep in mind that these groups are not omnipotent, able to wipe out entire countries. Terrorism can cause great suffering and damage, but it is also a very blunt weapon that can only achieve very limited results. It is possible to attribute to terrorists attributes which they cannot possess. Fighting terrorism requires not only appreciating the damage terrorists can do, but also the limits of terrorism as a weapon. Sincerely, Phil Enns Indonesia ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html