Nuclear Attack in USA 'Virtual Certainty'

[Capn]

First: Nothing in life is certain, you can't say it's an absolute certainty something will happen cause you'd be wrong. (Ok there are some extremes here, but we're talking in general)

Second: I fail to see how an "investment guru" has the ability to know the state of security in this country. Not necessarily that he's wrong that we are going to be at an increasing risk in the future, but he's not an expert in this matter and we should really only pay attention to the people that actually know what they are talking about. (but then ATOT wouldn't get 1% of the postcount it does now)

Third: I don't agree. I feel people will most likely try to set off a nuclear device, but whether or not they are successful depends on a large number of variables.

 

[trmiv]

What's next, an article on Colin Powell's virtually certain stock market picks for 2002 and beyond?

 

[Beau]

<< What's next, an article on Colin Powell's virtually certain stock market picks for 2002 and beyond? >>



Agreed. What tactical insight does this BUSINESSMAN have on national security.

 

[Beau]

<< ... but his main business is insurance. Berkshire Hathaway's insurance companies ? particularly General Re Corp. ? took a $2.4 billion underwriting loss because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington... >>




I guess he needed another business boost.

 

[rahvin]

<< trying to influence stock, or just looney ? >>



Lol, you should HOPE to be as smart as him someday. His business is insurance, BH owns geico and his company underwrites all the insurance in Cali for a major earthquake. He takes calculated risks and he is saying that he WON'T insure nuke or biological stuff because he feels it is so likely and will result in so much monetary damage. This was a meeting with his investors not an event intended to draw the press.

 

[Balthazar]

<<

<<

<< but his main business is insurance. >>



Uh huh. This bastard is trying to cause a panic so he can reap the monetary benefits. He ought to be charged with something akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. >>



Afraid you've got that wrong. Read on a little further...



<< The companies are now writing policies on terrorism but limiting their liability in any nuclear, biological or chemical attack. Only the federal government can ultimately insure property and other damage from a major terrorist attack >>



So if you're afraid he's planning to bilk terrified citizens through increased insurance premiums, then you have nothing to fear.

On the other hand, what he says seems almost inevitable unless we make immediate, substative changes in our foreign policy and stick with them for at least one generation. Of course, that's not going to happen. So be prepared... Wish it weren't so. >>




Fool....why do you think he spoke about it in front of his shareholders?
It IS an attempt to make more money. Maybe not on nuclear attacks but terrorist attacks in general....

 

[rahvin]

How does he make money saying he won't insure against those attacks and only the US government could provide that insurance? Explain to me how refusing to do that business will make him money.

Stop questioning his motives, Waren is a brilliant man.

 

[hoihtah]

i love statements like this.

======================================

vir·tu·al·ly Pronunciation Key (v&ucirc;rch--l)
adv.
In fact or to all purposes; practically: The city was virtually paralyzed by the transit strike.
Almost but not quite; nearly: ?Virtually everyone gets a headache now and then? (People).

cer·tain·ty Pronunciation Key (s&ucirc;rtn-t)
n. pl. cer·tain·ties
-The fact, quality, or state of being certain: the certainty of death.
-Something that is clearly established or assured: ?On the field of battle there are no certainties? (Tom Clancy).

==========================================================

hence, nuclear attack is ...

(almost but not quite) (fact).

hehe.

the chance of this just being his scam to influence stock price :

almost definate.
a definate probability.
a probable infallicy.

 

[Michael]

rahvin - The BH annual meeting is always a media circus and his speech is always widely reported. He knew and expected the press would be there. So the "not for the press" part of your arguement isn't that strong.

As I doubt many of the people complaining in this thread even know who Warren Buffett is or what business Berkshire Hathaway is in, I'm not going to bother replying to the complaints (other than the chance of an attack is old news, very old news).

Michael

 

[Beau]

<< How does he make money saying he won't insure against those attacks and only the US government could provide that insurance? Explain to me how refusing to do that business will make him money. Stop questioning his motives, Waren is a brilliant man. >>



Obviously it is not widely known that the government is the responsible party to help with acts of terrorism, especially since it is only now being written into the insurance policies. The common Joe Shmoe looking to provide for his/her family will probably be more likely to get life insurance now with the increased chances of something happening to them.

 

[trmiv]

<<
As I doubt many of the people complaining in this thread even know who Warren Buffett is or what business Berkshire Hathaway is in,
Michael >>



Of course we know who he is, he's Jimmy Buffett's brother. He actually wrote Margaritaville. What do you think we are, stoopid?










j/k. Funny thing is, I believe they are acutally distant cousins. At least that's what Jimmy Buffett claims.

 

[rahvin]

<< rahvin - The BH annual meeting is always a media circus and his speech is always widely reported. He knew and expected the press would be there. So the "not for the press" part of your arguement isn't that strong. >>



It doesn't say in the news reports if it was part of his speech or part of the Q&A. There have been a lot of questions in the insurance industry if they should insure against nuclear terrorism. Buffet laid down the gautlet and I expect other insurers to follow suit. *shrug* The move was not unexpected, there have been numerous reports that they don't even know how to estimate the damages from something like that or even the probability. It appears Buffet just made a judgement call based on gut and I would actually tend to agree with him.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

<<

<< How does he make money saying he won't insure against those attacks and only the US government could provide that insurance? Explain to me how refusing to do that business will make him money. Stop questioning his motives, Waren is a brilliant man. >>



Obviously it is not widely known that the government is the responsible party to help with acts of terrorism, especially since it is only now being written into the insurance policies. The common Joe Shmoe looking to provide for his/her family will probably be more likely to get life insurance now with the increased chances of something happening to them. >>



You can bet your ass people with life insurance policies will now have clauses written into them that exclude terrorist attacks. So if you die in a terrorist attack, your policy is worthless & they won't have to pay out a dime, and the beneficieries are stuck getting whatever the government is willing to pay. Yeah, that is a real stand-up thing to do.

 

[CocaCola5]

.

 

[StageLeft]

He is right but we all knew that - one day it will happen.

 

[Eli]

Well, of course.

There are countries that don't like us. If they can hijack planes, and fly them into buildings.. they can smuggle a nuke into the country. You would think it could almost be easier in some ways.