transputer wrote:

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon (news - web sites) is setting up a
stock-market style system in which investors would bet on terror
attacks, assassinations and other events in the Middle East. Defense
officials hope to gain intelligence and useful predictions while
investors who guessed right would win profits.


But the Pentagon already knows about future terrorist attacks. The Iraq
war was premised on self defence with the time machine element thrown
in. It was to DEFEND against Iraq who they KNEW was going to attack
America some time in the future.

With a proper futures market the Axis of the Evil (now minus one) and
the Coalition of the Omniscient can continue to beat the crap out of
each other to defend against future deeds, as yet uncommitted, with the
strong confidence that the forecast attacks will indeed take place.

I think the futures market for terror attacks and the inevitable
retaliation is a good thing. Nations can buy and sell future pre-emptive
strikes off one another. It's a well-informed and therefore fair market,
now that both sides can see so well into the future to tell so
accurately who the aggressors are going to be.

The UK can, for example, purchase a pre-emptive strike against North
Korea, because it is (being evil) going to attach America at some time
in the future. That way, Britain can do the deed and earn the self
defence credits it needs from the US, for later sale to the highest
bidder. Likewise, the US can pre-emptively strike against the IRA by
purchasing a pre-emptive anti-terrorist futures contract from the UK or
cashing in against other UK-held justifiable self defence credits at a
pre-arranged price.

We could coerce future agressors to buy their way out of pre-emptive
strikes by charging them in advance, with a rapidly rising price
structure guaranteed to get early results. Of course they then earn
credit for attacks that then don't occur for any reason, and interest on
attacks postponed. And they can trade in these attack cancellation or
postponement interest credits, exchanging a peaceful acquiescent foreign
policy for the purchased right to attach America by a certain date.

Libya could "sell" a Coalition of the Willing attack credit to Iran,
letting Iran off the hook as a future aggressor (for one attack anyway).
This would leave Libya in the self defence firing line, but with more
money in the bank for its present needs (or rebuilding, as the case may be).

Australia can also do some hedging here. We can send the SAS into
Malaysia (not yet a legitimate target or aggressor, but we are talking
futures here). Malaysia would likewise earn credits on the Victims of
Pre-emptive Attacks Market, simply by being justifiably attacked in
advance, and can now use these credits to buy its way out of real
attacks it was actually going to commit against the Coalition.

To quantify this market there needs to be a new index, the NASTYATAQ for
example. I for one would want to ensure that my superannuation fund
invests heavily in it! With good solid pre-emptive policy, we can all
have a prosperous future.

Cheers
David