On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:13:56 UTC, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

: 2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty
: nor security[2].

I've never believed that. Does it mean that, because I have to use a
PIN to get money from a hole in the wall, I deserve to have my account
cleaned out?

Ian


--

On 22 Jul 2005 12:06:03 GMT, "Ian Johnston"
wrote:

: 2. He who gives up liberty to gain security deserves neither liberty
: nor security[2].

I've never believed that. Does it mean that, because I have to use a
PIN to get money from a hole in the wall, I deserve to have my account
cleaned out?

No, of course it doesn't. How does using a PIN infringe on your civil
liberties?

It isn't an absolute statement, anyway. The point is that I would
prefer to live in a society where unpleasant things happen
occasionally, and where if/when caught the perpetrators of said
unpleasant things are punished suitably[1], than in a police state.

(Similarly, I applaud the 15-year-old who overturned a curfew order
recently. Punish those who do cause trouble, and do it harshly, but
do not impinge on the freedoms of the innocent. I do not believe in
collective responsibility of that type).

[1] Difficult with suicide bombers, of course. That said, the
security measures some people are suggesting might stop people being
blown up in Tube trains. It won't stop them being blown up while
waiting in a queue for security outside a busy Tube station, for
example, and it won't stop a suicide van bomb in the middle of Oxford
Street on a Saturday afternoon. If one avenue is closed to the
terrorists, they'll simply find another.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

(Neil Williams) wrote:
[1] Difficult with suicide bombers, of course. That said, the
security measures some people are suggesting might stop people being
blown up in Tube trains. It won't stop them being blown up while
waiting in a queue for security outside a busy Tube station, for
example, and it won't stop a suicide van bomb in the middle of Oxford
Street on a Saturday afternoon. If one avenue is closed to the
terrorists, they'll simply find another.


Football matches, cinemas, department stores, supermarkets,
restaurants, educational institutions ... they are all easy targets
for terror.

Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.

Plus there are dirty bombs - nuclear devices that release massive
radiation rather than powerful explosions, chemical and biological
weapons of all kinds. They can be detonated almost anywhere.

So was it worth going to war in Iraq, Mr Bliar?

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:56:27 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

Plus there are dirty bombs - nuclear devices that release massive
radiation rather than powerful explosions, chemical and biological
weapons of all kinds. They can be detonated almost anywhere.

I must admit that, when I first heard of the botched explosions of
this week, I did wonder if the small explosive combined with an odd
smell meant that some such agent had been used. Judging by the
chemical suits, the police clearly shared this concern, though
obviously it has not proven to be the case.

A dirty bomb (or even a large conventional bomb, perhaps of the nail
variety) in the middle of Oxford Street in the height of a shopping
Saturday, perhaps in the run up to Christmas, would probably be vastly
more destructive in terms of death and injury than a bomb on a train,
which by virtue of the long, thin nature of its target will be rather
limited in its effect. Several bombs, perhaps staggered to catch
panicking crowds running away from the first explosion, would be
worse. There is just about nothing that can be done to stop that,
even if it *was* a police state.

Thus, the only solution is much deeper than trying to catch the
perpetrators beforehand. As the IRA have already proven, if
terrorists want to bomb something, they will do so, just as if someone
wishes to steal a given car, however secure it may be, they will find
a means of doing so.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
(Neil Williams) wrote:
[1] Difficult with suicide bombers, of course. That said, the
security measures some people are suggesting might stop people being
blown up in Tube trains. It won't stop them being blown up while
waiting in a queue for security outside a busy Tube station, for
example, and it won't stop a suicide van bomb in the middle of Oxford
Street on a Saturday afternoon. If one avenue is closed to the
terrorists, they'll simply find another.


Football matches, cinemas, department stores, supermarkets,
restaurants, educational institutions ... they are all easy targets
for terror.

Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.

Plus there are dirty bombs - nuclear devices that release massive
radiation rather than powerful explosions, chemical and biological
weapons of all kinds. They can be detonated almost anywhere.

So was it worth going to war in Iraq, Mr Bliar?

Well, about two million of us did march, begging him not to make this
mistake.
As Pandora's box, the lifted lid of Iraq revealed much that was much better
hid.

When's he going to resign, to be suddenly and unexpectedly assasinated by a
suicide bomber who in the future some time steps out of the shadows in
Umbria, or Sicily, or Paris...?

GF.

In article , Tony Polson
writes
Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.

On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:40:19 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
Feather" wrote this:-

Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.

On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.

If someone crashes one into the highly active storage tanks at
Windscale we will be able to see, or Building 30 for that matter.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:09:19 UTC, David Hansen
wrote:

: On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:40:19 +0100 someone who may be "Clive D. W.
: Feather" wrote this:-
:
: Slightly less easy, but very vulnerable to small airborne attacks with
: light aircraft are ... our nuclear power stations.
:
: On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
: supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.
:
: If someone crashes one into the highly active storage tanks at
: Windscale we will be able to see, or Building 30 for that matter.

It almost sounds as if you'd like that to happen. It'll take a hell of
a lot of plastic sheeting to wrap up Cumbria ...

Ian

On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.

Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
impact?

Rather like the Titanic, unsinkable?


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 04:20:54 -0700 someone who may be "Roger T."
wrote this:-

While I agree that there are sometimes overblown claims of safety
your examples are debatable.

Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
impact?

They did.

However, they did not survive the subsequent fire.

Rather like the Titanic, unsinkable?

That was a mass media or financier invention. I doubt if the
designers and builders said that. They may have said virtually
unsinkable, which is a different thing altogether. The ship was in
many ways rather more unsinkable than many current ships, especially
car ferries, but there is a limit to how many compartments can be
opened to the sea and a ship still float.


There are a whole host of things one could crash an aeroplane into,
as well as Windscale. Chemical works (an oil refinery for example)
and suspension bridges are two obvious things.

So-called security measures are not going to prevent disasters. Only
draining the swamp will work.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.