Re: Doomsday, maybe...
Mon, 01 Jul 96 13:35:07 EST

Does that $100B, include government "management costs"?

If so, cheap at twice the price, just spread it over a dozen or more
years, and call the project a jobs program (just keep the lawyers out
of it or it will never end and cost multiples).

If this is "net" exclusive of government management... assume that
condition 2 is correct and there is nothing that can prevent it, even
this expensive technology will not fully be able to prevent it. That
way the practicalities of the issue line up with scripture.

Signed, a federal public servant ;-}

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Doomsday, maybe...
Author: "Paul Arveson" <> at Internet-Mail
Date: 7/1/96 10:56 AM

Suppose you had the following scenario:

1. Scientific predictions of a global catastrophe, which might destroy a
large fraction of human life, as well as many plants and animals.
2. Biblical prophecies suggesting the possibility of a future catastrophe.
3. Some uncertainty as to when and under what conditions it may happen. A
controversy among many scientists as to whether it will occur at all.
4. Expensive but technically feasible ways to prevent the catastrophe.
Let's suppose it would take $100 billion to fully prevent it.

Under these conditions, what course would you advocate for the nation?

Paul Arveson, Research Physicist
Code 724, NSWC, Bethesda, MD 20084
(301) 227-3831 (W) (301) 227-1914 (FAX) (301) 816-9459 (H)