[extropy-chat] Freedom and Practicality

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 01:30:56PM +0100, Russell Wallace wrote:

> >I disagree. If you have the fissibles, it's straightforward.
> 
> Straightforward for a team of skilled engineers with appropriate tools and
> the knowledge of how to use them, not for a lone nutcase or small band

Do you think 9/11 was a lone nutcase, or a small band thereof? That little
thing they did certainly got them some attention.
Do you think educated people can't be terrorists? 

> thereof. Get it slightly wrong and all you get when you press the button is
> a fizzle. But getting hold of the fissionables is the hard part.

I believe I already said that. Hard, but not impossible.
The critical part would be to obtain low-burn, cold ash. 
That would require some long-term planning, and some wealth.
Long-term, proliferation is playing against us here.
 
> Terrorist groups have homelands and host countries, whose people do tend to
> mind dying. Everyone's seen what happened to the Taliban after 9/11.

Are there more Islamic extremists now than before 9/11, yes or no?
Deterrence doesn't work.
 
> I'm talking about what's been happening in reality, not what could
> theoretically happen if people did things just right. If everyone did things
> right, the world would be a different place than it is.

Amateurs are not a threat. They are merely annoying.
 
> If you want to kill
> >many people, you would put the weapon where it hurts. 20 kT Manhattan
> >penthouse/skyscraper roof, on a tower would be more realistic.
> 
> Increasing the chance of being detected and stopped in the process.

Now that's just wishful thinking, and you know it. It is impossible
to nuke-proof an entire city. And I frankly wouldn't care to live
in a totalitarian state which would go for that target.
 
> It would hurt, certainly, but as you say, not to the tune of a death toll in
> millions.

Millions of people die of old age. This is not associated with a highly
spectacular destruction of high-profile businesses, and area contamination.

Actually, there is 1.5 MPeople in Manhattan during daytime, on 57 km^2 
(4x20 km). There might be more suitable potential targets.

> Undoubtedly. But let's not encourage disruption out of fear of an attack
> that hasn't even happened.

I disagree. Some human configurations are more vulnerable than others.
Telepresence would solve many potential problems, such as e.g.
removing need for human concentration, disrupting infection networks,
etc.

Both paralyzing fear and head-in-the-sand are not rational strategies.
Identifying potentially vulnerable configurations and working to resolve
such hot spots is constructive.
 
> > Agreed, but people are not rational.
> 
> Let's try to set a better example, then.

Irrational people don't care about examples.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.ativel.com
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060528/c273c5b7/attachment.bin>