David Honig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 01:50 AM 6/12/00 -0400, Sean Roach wrote:
> >Nah! That would be environmental terrorism.
>
> Not terrorism if you're at war. Look at what the US leaves
> around after a spat.
>
> I guess defoliating south asia wasn't environmental terrorism because
> we are Amerikans, ja? And all those cute perfectly circular ponds...
>
> Hg is not very effective though, takes years to get into the
> food chain, and could be cleaned up fairly easily.
Yeah. Pure mercury isn't that damaging. The oxides and organics are
far worse, but I think that's already been covered here.
Perhaps a better way would be mixing up some biological or chemical
agents which would cause a death cloud to float across Europe. I can't
advocate that, of course, and I don't think it would be that effective
either.
See, it wouldn't be effective because the world nuclear powers would
just drop a (clean) nuke on it and blow the site and its defense
systems to oblivion. At the press conference, the government just
tells the truth: the platform was inhabited by people who had managed
to produce or acquire a large quantity of chemical and biological
weapons of mass destruction and threatened to release them if their
demands (i.e. "Leave us alone and keep our network feeds operating.")
weren't met.
It should also be noted that the notion of a "clean" nuke is entirely
relative.
