[steve-b]

against any widespread stockpiling that would make an effective response to a massive attack impossible

Er, widespread stockpiling is clearly a necessary preparation for an effective response to a massive attack.

[Dirk McQuickly]

I think he's referring to Aunt Ethel and her Costco-sized, three year supply of Cipro -- hey, could you imagine the black market for Cipro if something big happened and there wasn't enough in the pipeline? -- This is what the feds want to avoid.

[sanchmo]

widespread stockpiling is clearly a necessary preparation for an effective response to a massive attack
In the long-term this is true. However, I think that in the short-term it's not.

Widespread stockpiling is absolutely impossible in the short term, considering our current supply. There is no such thing as "widespread stockpiling" in 2001 - there is only "isolated stockpiling" that leaves a very limited population safe and a much greater population massively vulnerable. This would, in turn, present multiple clear targets for attack.

In the short term (this year) the most effective plan that can realistically be implemented is "strategic stockpiling" - stockpiling in strategc rapid-response locations - coupled with ready avaibility throughout the country. This allows for an evenly distributed, limited vulnerability. The even distribution prevents wide-open targets; the limited vulnerability limits the ultimate effect of attacks.

Once supplies are available, we should definitely move to "widespread stockpiling." Until then, it's just not possible.

[princess leah]

I think one good nuclear bomb over Bagdad ought to stop Saddam Hussein from making chemical weapons and then drop the 2nd bomb over the multi-caves area of Ashcanistan. It's time for fear to turn tail and go the other way!