🚀 go-pugleaf

Carey Gregory wrote:

> And while I agree greater risks are being largely ignored (eg, trucks),
> what makes a plane such a concern is its ability to get close to sensitive
> facilities quickly and easily, and the difficulty of stopping it as
> compared to stopping land vehicles.  After all, you don't need F-16s to
> stop a box truck.

That a truck is easy to stop is not relevant if the truck isn't being
stopped.  Someone could be driving a truck about the DC area for hours w/o
being stopped.  During all that time, various toxins can be dumped into the
local atmosphere.

That's much more of a risk than an incredibly obvious plane which cannot
carry nearly as much weight in toxin as the slightest of trucks (or even
cars).

But the NYTimes today had a little piece that explained why even my scenario
above is unlikely; there are far better targets for terrorists that we're
securing in no way whatsoever.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/30/opinion/30wein.html

 ...
 But there is a third possibility that, while it seems far 
 more mundane, could be just as deadly: terrorists spreading 
 a toxin that causes botulism throughout the nation's milk supply.
 ...

The article goes on to describe just how easily this can be accomplished
using today's complete lack of security.  

So the government has useless and expensive "show pieces" like the ADIZ,
while threats to US citizens - and primarily in this case, our children -
are ignored.  Or perhaps the Bush Administration doesn't drink a lot of
milk, so it feels no reason to fear that threat.

But the reality is the government is grandstanding while putting our
children at risk.  

 - Andrew