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."

Comments

Well, Duh!

[mschaffer]

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).

Re:Well, Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

They wouldn't have won if the cowards who think all these trampling of our rights were "necessary" to be safe. Also, it wouldn't happen folks would get it through their think skulls that it's impossible to be safe, the Government will only make it look like they're keeping us safe; and in the meantime, folks are still playing dice with their lives while they tool down the highway yakking on their cell phones without any concern for their lives.

People are stupid.

Re:Well, Duh!

[Drew_9999]

Terrorists have... robbed us of many of our guaranteed rights and freedoms

No, they didn't. We gave them up.

Re:Well, Duh!

[mcgrew]

The terrorists are a control freak's wet dream come true.

Re:Well, Duh!

[Monkeedude1212]

Its even worse than that - the US Government isn't just suspending the rights of its own citizens, it affects EVERYONE who has to interact with them. I did not vote upon Canadian Representatives based on their policies of airport security because it wasn't an issue when the elections were held. Now that the issue has arisen and body Scanners are in Canadian Airports... wait who approved that? My Government? My government bowed to your government. And a dozen other countries along with it. I merely want to visit an American city for my vacation - I have high hopes though as I haven't heard any fondling stories taking place Canada (yet) because I don't believe our airport security HAS to take orders from the TSA and I don't think we've employed the "enhanced pat-down technique". This means I'm allowed to Opt out and get a regular pat down -
but I don't know if thats the case in the UK - I believe the law there recently (might have changed) was that you might get selected for Body scanning (possibly at random) and if you are selected, you have two options: Take the scan or not fly. That is their only opt-out.

Really now - the worst part is - this is the case even if I don't plan to stay in the States. If I want to go to Mexico there will no doubt be a stopover somewhere Stateside. It doesn't seem fair that their airport security policy applies to me even if I'm only there for an hour inside the same airplane. Really, there should be another method to handle those flights if they are really concerned (segregrated runway, new terminal, etc).

Please - I know US Citizens don't have a whole lot of power when it comes to running your country, and that most of the time it's run by powers far beyond your control - but if there's ANYTHING I could ask from you guys, it's to create enough of an outcry over issues such as this that BOTH parties take a negative stance to it - like how it was important for the US to have a "Pull out of Iraq" plan for the last election even if not completely implemented or immediately soon, it pushed some steps in the right direction.

Re:Well, Duh!

[Onymous Coward]

Exactly this.

Folks, they're terrorists. The point is terror. The more you worry about them, the more they've won.

And people who make a big deal about them and about fighting them are doing exactly what the terrorists want, what the terrorists need. To be effective, terrorists need your support, in the form of your active fear. Quit giving it to them. Try this instead: focus on how many deaths we suffer from car accidents each year, or even just eating badly. Put things into perspective.

Re:Well, Duh!

[Achra]

No, we didn't. They were taken from us. Systematically and by both parties of government.

Re:Well, Duh!

[drooling-dog]

i never gave anything up.

I'll be looking for you in the next airport security line, then.

Most people don't feel it (at first) when their rights are taken away, because they're submissive to authority and have no desire to attract its wrath by rocking the boat. As humiliations mount, they justify them by thinking, "Well, this is necessary to protect us from the terrorists."

Are your rights intact because you're standing up for them, or because you're not planning on using them anyway?

follow the money

[bugi]

So who benefits financially?

Wrong end of the Cold War

[spacefiddle]

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?

Re:Wrong end of the Cold War

[TheRaven64]

The Cold War is a good example; the US spent a relatively small amount arming the terrorists in Afghanistan, forcing the USSR to spend a lot more to maintain their occupation. Similarly, the Star Wars project (in spite of being a complete failure as a real weapons system) forced the USSR to spend huge amounts on launch capability to be able to be sure of getting missiles past the (nonexistent) shield.

Wars have been won and lost because of economics for a long time though. Napoleon understood this when he said that an army marches on its stomach - the supply chain can lose a war just as easily as enemy action.

One of the examples that's now used when teaching this stuff is a brief engagement from the last Golf War, when an Apache helicopter popped up over a hill, sighted a convoy, and destroyed it. The convoy was made of trucks worth, maybe, $20K each. The missiles that the Apache fired cost upwards of $100K each. Who won the engagement? It really depends on what was in the trucks, but it's most probable that the result was that the US losses were more expensive, in spite of the fact that they destroyed the the enemy and returned home with no casualties.

Re:Wrong end of the Cold War

[NoSig]

That may be a good deal for the US if their budget is larger than the other side's. If their budget is 10x, then actions of destroying y enemy resources at 9y cost will still win them the war.

Simple solution

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:Simple solution

[Beardo the Bearded]

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm afraid that you've misunderstood.

"We are the United States of America. We are the most powerful country that has ever existed in the history of this planet. We spend more on the opening weekend of a movie than most countries have as the entire GDP. We provide trade or aid to every country on the planet, be it friend or foe.

And for that, we have been attacked. Thousands of American citizens -- not soldiers, just people going to work -- were killed by murderers who seek only to sow chaos and have us go to their countries and destroy it from without. We could."

*pause for a sip of coffee*

"With no more effort than a drink of coffee, I could destroy any country and make it unlivable for man or bug forever. But I won't because you don't hurt children that don't know any better. What we are going to do is find you, the men responsible for this, and bring you to trial for murder. If you are found guilty you will be put to death in a sterile, clean, and merciful fashion. You will not be martyred. We are offering a bounty of $100 million dollars plus US citizen status for information leading to arrest. That is enough money to literally buy Muslim paradise for the rest of your life.

"What else we will do is rebuild these towers and the pentagon, and do so by the end of this year. Your master stroke will be erased and you will have nothing to show for it. The best you can do, and we will erase it and move on. We will not seek revenge on those near you; just on you. In a year, who will even believe you?

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have work to do."

-- speech given in another universe; September 12, 2001.

Re:Goals

[metrometro]

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.

Re:Goals

[Beardo the Bearded]

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.

Re:It cost them $4200 plus many killed or captured

[nabsltd]

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.

Re:Goals

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

When there is media frenzy about the latest underwear bomber or about a possibly anthrax but could be chalk dust thing, what is the incentive for the bureaucrat/sheriff/assistant deputy sub administrator to do the sane thing? Should the slightest thing go wrong, in reality or in the imagination of someone, is there any chance for these people to stand up and say, "Look, in retrospect, sitting in arm chair, after all the facts have been collected, whetted and unreliable and useless information removed, it looks like it could have been averted if A has done B or C has not done D. But back at the thick of the things, I did not want to infringe on the liberty and freedom of millions of Americans just on mere suspicion. It was a calculated risk. The millions of people who were not affected by this incident. If I had imposed heavy handed security measures, those millions would have been put through needless burdens. That savings justifies the cost."

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.

Re:Attitudes have changed over the years

[CohibaVancouver]

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...

Re:Goals

[zmollusc]

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.