On 16 November 2013 19:54, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 11/15/2013 8:36 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>  First, I think maybe we disagree as to what constitutes a police state.
> My definition of it is one in which the police can investigate and
> interrogate anyone at anytime on any suspicion without judicial warrant and
> enforce some political orthodoxy that in turn supports their power.  It has
> nothing to do with having very tight security around some particular
> installation (like nuclear weapons plants and ICBM silos).  It wouldn't
> even be useful in protecting LFTR powerplants.
>
>
Are you sure we don't already live in a police state (or rather several) ?
Certainly that appeared (to me at least) to be what GWB was aiming for, and
I'm not sure BO has changed course. And of course the UK and NZ and others
are eagerly following suit...

But apart from that, I agree - we don't need a police state to keep
fissionable material out of the wrong hands, we need good security -
something the nuclear industry has, however, been somewhat lacking in
historically.

(I assume "Edge of Darkness" was a documentary...)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to