Grabbed this on my iPhone just now and I have to admit that I don't trust this task force. These guys MUST be lying or hopelessly paranoid. There is no way you could say there's a better than 50/50 chance that a city will get hit by WMD.
Of course, bio or chem weapons I could see as being more likely, but still not a 50% chance, but nukes (which are what we all think of first when we hear the letters "WMD")?? No way, man, and reporting this story this way is nothing short of alarmist and fear mongering.
Reuters is really doing us a disservice by not making it immediately clear that nukes are much less likely than chem or bio. And even knowing that, when I saw that headline and read that first paragraph, I thought they meant their was a better than even chance that nukes would definitely hit a big city--then reality set in and I remembered how the odds of any random big city being hit are dramatically against.
Thanks, Reuters, for making us crap our pants...again!
Oh and newsflash: government task forces have been getting it wrong for the last 8 years--probably longer--all the press ever does is highlight the fear and bury the logic. Way to unquestioningly quote the party line and question little-to-nothing.
Posted by email from thepete's posterous
Orignal From: Chances of a WMD Attack in a big city better than 50%??
No comments:
Post a Comment