Slashdot Mirror
Causing Terror On the Cheap
jhigh writes "Bruce Schneier posts on his blog today about the value of terror with respect to cost-benefit for the terrorists. If you look at terror attacks in terms of what they cost the terrorists to implement, compared with what they cost the economy of the nation that was hit, the reward for terrorists is astronomical. Add in the insane costs of the security measures implemented afterward, particularly in America, and it's easy to see why the terrorists do what they do. Even when they're unsuccessful, they cost us billions in security countermeasures."
Let's face it, I don't know if the Terrorists have "won", but we have surely lost. Terrorists have changed our lives, robbed us of many of our guaranteed rights and freedoms (in the US this has occurred with the aid of our government), and we are paying for it every day (and not just with dollars).
So who benefits financially?
These ideas have been floated around for quite awhile. Many folks here in these forums have said as much. Mr Schneier himself has addressed the same issue before. At what point does this move out of the "relevation" category?
I seem to recall a number of economists and poli sci students in the early 90s smugly telling me all about a component of the Soviet Union's cold war "loss" and economic collapse: the US making them think they had to spend more and more in the arms race with us (zomg, USA can destroy the world 10 times over, we can only do it 5 times, build more nukes comrade!). A pretty shaky social contract, to begin with, finally got kicked in the nuts one too many times. C/D?
That which does not kill us makes us... st
America is happy to spend billions allegedly securing against terror attacks, but won't do the obvious things for fear of corporate lobbyists.
Namely, anyone with a fake ID and cash can buy all the handguns, high power rifles, extended magazines and armor piercing ammunition he could want. It's a terrorist's best possible outcome. Mexican drug cartels take road trips to the US to buy weapons and ammo. It's crazy.
Citizens take the burden, corporations are untroubled.
The simple answer is to stop wasting money on shit like this. Something that kills less people per year than farm animals is not something to be wasting money on. When the towers fell we should have rebuilt them 10 stories taller, and locked the cockpit door. That should have been the end of that. Instead we waste money on ineffective security and act like a bunch of Nancys.
The goal or Al Queda, is and always was to transform the Islamic world along their fundamentalist ideals. Their best idea of how to do that is convince Muslims they are under attack from a powerful outside enemy, and that Al Queda is leading the resistance. The US has played it's part in this game, from their point of view, perfectly.
Stupid, stupid, stupid US policy to take this bait.
Specifically for those terrorists in the set of ( Authoritarian Politicians, Kleptocrats, Corporatists).
For these soulless creatures, they've profited and gained beyond measure.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
"Does Al Queda believe that if they depress our economy consistently enough, we will no longer be able to financially support Israel? "
The US seems to believe that leveling mud brick houses with million dollar missiles will accomplish world piece.
A perfect example would be the classic game Jenga. Think of each individual terrorist attack as removing one block(either the attack itself or the government reaction to the attack can remove the block). Eventually, the terrorists don't have to do anything. So much of the tower has been removed that it collapses under its own weight due to the lack of support.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Has there actually been any major war or conflict in which terrorism hasn't been used in place of costly head-on campaigns? Demoralization of the opposite side's citizenry and the invoking of fear in one's opponent's lower ranks is a standard tactic in every battle and war... especially if at least one side is low on bodies/resources.
We could do the same in the "War on Terror" if we wished. Hell, we just may be, but the public may not know about it.
However, I don't necessarily agree with the quote "They cost us billions in countermeasures." That shifts the purchasing responsibility onto a /tactic/ instead of a person who signs the supply and service requisitions. It is an active choice to spend any dollar as a response to terrorism. If those "countermeasures" are actually kick-backs or unethical methods of funding a friend's business, did terrorism cause that fraud? No. It's an action of man.
"So random poster, you seem to be suggesting that we're spending too much on fighting terrorism... is that what you're saying?"
No, not really. I think we're spending too much money NOT fighting terrorism. Or, to say it another way, I think we're spending too much money on things that will not rationally reduce the chance of anti-US terrorism.
"WTF?"
STFU and let me explain. We spend billions on creating pain and suffering. Terrorists recruit those who have been affected by (directly or indirectly) that pain and suffering. Suddenly there's more money and bodies for terrorism. So the US spends more money on creating pain and suffering... etc. You see the problem. Hearts and minds have not been won. Only hate and derision.
Direct investment in schools (secular AND religious), infrastructure, non-narcotic agricultural income sources, cultural heritage centers (years before Chase Credit and McDonalds, please) -- these are all ways to spend the money that will not increase the terrorist recruitment causes. Oh, and don't charge a dime for it. Make sure it's a gift. There's no use in doing good with the intent of reducing terrorism if the people are on the tab for all the "good" you're doing.
With stronger education, reinforced cultural roots, non-controversial sources of income, the people themselves will begin to take politics into their own hands. It's a ~40 year process, but that's how people change... one generation at a time.
But these aren't profitable ventures. War is much more profitable. Responding to terrorism, as the article shows, is much more profitable. And we value the economy over all other things in America, today.
Except we are the ones doing the enslaving, assuming that their governments don't just roll over so that your corporate bosses can take advantage of them. the rest of your blather is nothing more than the usual cowardice espoused by people who do not deserve any sort of freedom in any case.
I always said they should be building schools and hospitals over in Afghanistan. 20 years from now they couldn't muster enough explosives to blow their nose.
"Crazy grandpa's talking about the US being the devil again. I'm off to school with my sister!"
"Okay honey, I'll take him into the hospital and get his meds refilled."
Bring in gun registration. "No, it's totally fine to have a rocket launcher. You just have to register it first. Well, yes, if something gets blown up with a rocket we're going to come ask you where you were. Assault rifle? No problem, get an eye exam, take the gun safety course, and fill out form Q-48A and you're golden. You can pick up a rifle case at Wal-Mart."
These guys have no long-term strategy.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
An attack that is attempted but fails costs more than money.
Please note that there have been no failed terrorist attacks in the past 10 years.
Every attack achieved at least one of the objectives. Agreed, most have only achieved one of the objectives, but all have achieved the objective of having various nations make life worse for their own citizens.
No way anyone is going stand that. Everyone from the President down to the last blogger is after some blood, some scape goat, some one who can be blamed for it all, and may be sued on top of that for damages. So every damn bureaucrat is going to make sure there is enough paper trail to protect his tail seven times over.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Anybody know why it seems like we've responded with a much greater response this time round?
The reasons are many, and varied, but largely it comes down to "cable news" and the 24-hour news cycle. Cable news now has to both increase ratings and run many more stories. One way they can deal with this pressure is to discuss an issue over and over again up to a fever pitch, leaving Ma and Pa Kettle terrified. This didn't used to happen, back when the message was 'keep calm and carry on.'
The 24-hour news cycle further complicates matters by frightening politicians into thinking they'll be out of a job if they come down on the side of common sense, as opposed to fear mongering and security theatre. For example, imagine if a politician were to come down against junk fondling and then some brown guy were to smuggle some firecrackers on board a plane. The cable news networks would flay that politician alive in endless segments aired over and over again...
It seems people are still believing the lie that the terrorist are out to "destroy our freedom". The terrorists do not "win" when we add security to our airports, or undermine the privacy and rights of our citizens. They're not fighting us because they "hate our freedom". They win when we get out of their country, and stop supporting their enemies (Israel, moderate muslims, etc).
Taking guns away is totally worth it. We aren't allowed guns here in the UK and as a result we are completely safe. Apart from the occasional terror attack. And the couple of shootings a week. And the criminals with guns. And not being able to defend yourself or your family.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
I don't think you've been paying attention. We had no reason to go into Iraq. Those deaths are a direct result of our destabilizing the country, bombing it, destroying it's utility infrastructure, knocking its economy back to the stone age, and creating an environment that directly fostered growth of Al Queda and other groups; also, we destroyed Iraq's ability to defend the border with Iraq.
A) we should not have been there, and B) if we had not been, those people would have led very different lives, with an emphasis on lives. They're dead now, and it is Bush the Lesser's responsibility that they are - he led us in there, and he did so under completely false pretenses.
Note that I'm not trying to glorify Saddam's regime in any way shape or form; I'm just saying that we had no legitimate reason to attack that country and that since we did, the consequences are on our heads.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Absolutely. I for one live in fear that just about any crazy in the UK can get a gun with no waiting period. All the kids have them, everywhere. Our murder rate is so high it's ridiculous. Why I saw a bunch of drive by shootings just last week.
All those teenage gangs that say they carry knives 'because everyone else does'. That's the mentality you espouse - one that quite clearly keeps everyone safe from harm. I'm going to get a Samurai sword so that I can protect myself on the way to the shops. I'm saving up for an assault rifle so that I feel safe going out in the evening. I'm also putting land mines in my garden and flamethrowers under my car.
You know why the police here don't carry guns as standard? Because no-one else does. Because we are a whole lot safer than the US, and gun control has a lot to do with it (as does higher driving test standards). I agree with the concept that it's the people that are the problem - as evidenced by countries that have very high rates of gun ownership and next to no gun crime - but since we _already_ have those people, and many of them _don't_ already have guns I can't see how making it easier for them to get hold of is going to make anything better for anyone. If you _really_ want to own a gun, join a club or take up hunting, get a license and fire away. Ever tried getting a motorcycle license? CBT, Theory, Module 1 test, Module 2 test - you can do it, it's just not instantaneous - and the reason is the same: Idiots would just go out and get one and cause problems. Guns, motorcycles, cars, aeroplanes, heavy machinery, demolition/mining explosives, professional fireworks, hazardous chemicals, gas boilers, electrical installation. The list of things you _can_ do if you get some kind of license or prove some competence is huge. So I propose this reductio ad absurdum: If we should have no restriction on gun ownership because it will make us safer then surely no licensing or control over anything that is potentially dangerous will also make us safer. We don't have a 'right to bear arms as part of an organised militia' so don't tell me we have a 'right' to defend ourselves - we do have that right but it doesn't extend to using any more than the minimum amount of force to protect yourself or another. If you think you need a gun to be safe because some idiot kid who's only aspiration in life is to be part of a gang thinks that it will make him safe then you're equally as misguided as they are