Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: rawlins@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Gregory J. E. Rawlins) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Nanotech thoughts Message-ID: Date: 6 Dec 89 04:49:41 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Indiana University Lines: 17 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article landman@hanami.eng.sun.com (Howard A. Landman x61391) writes: [...] -would be even cheaper. (I hope you understand why I'm being vague about -the exact process!!!) It always puzzled me that there are no chemical/biological terrorists. If i was a terrorist i would surely consider that the low cost, easy availability, and wide delivery advantages of chemical/biological weapons make them the weapons of choice. Perhaps terrorists are just not very imaginative. Or perhaps terrorists aren't scientists and don't know any scientists. Or perhaps there is something really sexy about threatening to use a thermonuclear weapon that just isn't there when threatening to release something that most people can't see. It's a mystery. gregory. -- ps. to Howard: it isn't necessary to hire a plane; an alternate weapon probably works very well when dropped in a dam serving a major city...