Re: [TSCM-L] {2380} USA

From: Rob Hommel <rho..._at_mad.scientist.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 23:43:21 -0500

>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:25 2024
Received: by 10.35.13.4 with SMTP id q4mr22293737pyi.7.1202250545190;
        Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <code..._at_gmail.com>
Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (mu-out-0910.google.com [209.85.134.186])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a28si3191218pye.0.2008.02.05.14.29.04;
        Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of code..._at_gmail.com designates 209.85.134.186 as permitted sender) client-ip 9.85.134.186;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of code..._at_gmail.com designates 209.85.134.186 as permitted sender) smtp.mailde..._at_gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) head..._at_gmail.com
Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id w9so1916425mue.6
        for <TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com>; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:29:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v
a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h mainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        bh=sGdZT6PLlm5eV6NVPYB/zwEpmNLp1O2knTiZY/xoCuM=;
        bMUjXINQUbrnrwcXmQwgJV53aAjERjqk+XcGBS/85m/kXv1qQli3kSZ8OErRMNulSX8kUnnrnjQyueepI3Xmnt/YVVlpNw4pS0Daxk5Qlc8ulpyQJ3KEhctktk6SbEPyI1RpIZcOYY30KWHy9PS2KW18nqCdlztRuQ9XosGsx0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=w8l8jwFfRBRFHVZUtuPBBczT5DoWIwiVivWxICdRk3rgqeNhfjBHeHFIIUp5zyfZNZMGyQiqofB+bL5XqmjvBnf0dTNFnHT0Kval3ZLsDV0bbGDXYnkMVZEP2jKZbvICxIePu+gbmlNQMKcGiymKeEEnvoW+RZXz0EwMD9N97Ug=
Received: by 10.82.112.3 with SMTP id k3mr16473102buc.15.1202250543802;
        Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.82.185.3 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4ef5fec60802051429q3aa4107el4adb2ac65880f3d0_at_mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:29:03 -0800
From: coderman <code..._at_gmail.com>
To: TSCM-L2006_at_googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] {2393} Re: USA
In-Reply-To: <20080204033114.E6B6633C96_at_absinthe.tinho.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
References: <20080202044321.5DE09103C3_at_ws1-3.us4.outblaze.com>
         <20080204033114.E6B6633C96_at_absinthe.tinho.net>

On Feb 3, 2008 7:31 PM, <d..._at_geer.org> wrote:
> ...
> For any security problem, the correct number of
> failures is >0, preferably 1. If the number
> of failures is 0, then cost (broadly defined)
> is necessarily too high.

so, PAL's on the US nuclear weapons arsenal are to expensive, and we
should cut corners until a rogue nuke or two makes its way into the
world?

like all generalizations, this one is flawed :)

but i agree with your point. in all but a handful of situations there
is an acceptable risk of failure balanced against cost. although,
some may argue the $4,000,000,000,000+ USD spent on the US nuclear
deterrent is way too high...

best regards,
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:25 CST