| > I don't think that's what a "straw man" is. I didn't make up something that I claimed was your position and then attacked it. Yes you did. You claimed the argument was about small attacks, which it isn't. > Thus, a relatively small number of small attacks implies a relatively smaller number of large attacks. You have no basis for this belief. And in fact I think it's exactly the opposite. Small attacks aren't worth it (to the terrorist). The "cost" to a terrorist is a human (the terrorist), either dying or getting caught. Same cost for both types of attack. So a large attack gives a bigger "bang for the buck" for equal cost, and is thus more desirable. > the obvious reason would be to use it as a first strike. So, again, watch the country, not the border. See if the country is interested in a first strike. These types of attacks don't come out of nowhere. |