I like what he has to say and agree with most of it; however, I found one particular sentence rather unsettling:
If we assume WMDs including EMPs are neutralized...
Why would we assume that? I can go to the local university and observe the results of recent spallation reactions, and I'm still standing on the ground, so I'm pretty sure the fundamental forces are still operating, lol.
Does he mean politically, militarily, or authoritatively neutralized? He has to. As far as i'm aware there's no way to neutralize the strong interaction of Nuclear WMDs and the only real protection against EMP is shielding or a Faraday cage...
I like what he has to say and agree with most of it; however, I found one particular sentence rather unsettling:
Why would we assume that? I can go to the local university and observe the results of recent spallation reactions, and I'm still standing on the ground, so I'm pretty sure the fundamental forces are still operating, lol.
Does he mean politically, militarily, or authoritatively neutralized? He has to. As far as i'm aware there's no way to neutralize the strong interaction of Nuclear WMDs and the only real protection against EMP is shielding or a Faraday cage...
Maybe he means chemical and biological WMDs.
Thoughts?