Riiiiiight. It's common knowledge that voters despise Congress as a whole, but think their own personal representative is a god. And if such an attack were to occur, Bush's fate would be entirely determined by how he responded. If he sat on his hands and did nothing, sure, he might be removed. If he immediately declares WWIII, he'll be a lock for reelection.
By the way, if the whole of Congress is going to be thrown out, then who's going to be around to impeach Bush? If the public turns on them, they'll cease to give a damn. And what the hell does "failure to perform his duties" mean? The Constitution clearly states that the president can only be "removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Pissing off the public is not a "high crime or misdemeanor."
I don't recall the United States crumbling after the flu epidemic of 1919.
By the way, if anyone can answer this question, I'd appreciate it: Does a smallpox vaccination absolutely 100% guarantee you'll end up with one of those ugly round scars on your upper arm? I consider that disfigurement, too.
We're busy celebrating the miraculous recovery of the stock market today (all credit due to Congress and the Administration, of course)!
Quite aside from any retaliation, bio-warfare would be a dangerous thing for the mo-slimes to start. But I can't say they've shown many signs of brilliance to date.
If you are going to game this out, be sure to game the whole thing. The biggest question is: How much vaccine do we really have? If we have as much as this article assumes, then we can implement any policy we want, including allowing voluntary civilian vaccination.
BUT... If we have much less workable vaccine than we claim, then we need to give the impression that we have much more than we actually have. Which, in turn, means we need a credible reason not to allow voluntary vaccination.
Voila! The health establishment sticks their collective heads in the sand (I'm trying to be polite here), and then proceeds to block the obviously best solution. "They" only allow vaccination of a few key people. We all believe it's just another example of the bureaucratic idiocy we all know so well.
I ain't buyin it. No way have we been able to find/create enough vaccine to protect all of North America this fast.
Likewise, if we had enough vaccine to do the job, no way would low level staffers be able to block the President's wishes. If he ordered approval for voluntary vaccinations, we'd have it tomorrow.
'Course, all bets are off if you are insane. Is Saddam insane?
If Saddam is insane, but nevertheless capable of self-preservation, then he will not use a weapon that is sure to result in his personal destruction unless he is faced with that destruction anyway. Hence I do not expect an attack on Iraq untill we have something in place for our own self-defense, or we have concluded that Saddam will strike first if we wait.
I doubt that our defenses are ready, but I am also unsure that Saddam will wait. Using the same strategic gaming approach as this article, you can expect Saddam to strike first if he becomes convinced we are close to achieving a self defense capability.
They practically gave its street address.
Were I a terrorist, I would not bother to release smallpox. Instead, I would make that British company vanish from the face of the Earth, and sit back and watch the panic.
--Boris
Does anyone know what a "grognard" is?
Grognard is a slang term for someone who enjoys playing wargames (and strategy games in general). Originally it referred to table-top gamers, but now, by extension, it's also used for computer gamers.
In the old Jeff Foxworthy "redneck" tradition: If you enjoy reading 300 page manuals for your games, you may be a grognard. If you sometimes find yourself staring at a strategy game map at 4 AM, and you keep mumbling "just one more turn", you're probably a grognard. If the game represents planes by plus signs and ships by 0's, you're definitely a grognard.
The word was originally used to describe veteran soldiers in Napoleon's army - in French, it can be translated as "grumbler".
Well, if they would not revert to terrorism as form of their grievance, there wouldn't be any problems with the Muslims.
This is one last warning to the Muslims, if we have another Sept. 11, I wouldn't want be happy being an Arab.
P.S. Not all Arabs are Muslims, in fact many of them are Christians. Remember that.
We don't need 50 million Mexicans to magnify America's panic, Holsinger.
All we need is the constant procession of alarmist scum like you, who have found there's a media dollar to be made by yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre. As far as I'm concerned people like you should be arrested- the charge, needlessly sowing concern amongst the public, for personal advantage.
This pops up with some regularity, but a worldwide epidemic is unlikely. Smallpox was wiped out in the early 70s by a team of about a hundred health workers, going from village to village in remote parts of the world.
It doesn't spread by air and it doesn't spread quickly. A deliberate terrorist attack would definitly be a tragedy, but would be contained.