I am always reminded of a quote from Arthur C. Clarke I was made aware of through Bill Joys "Why the future doesen't need us." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html (Still a classic piece)
"Another idea is to erect a series of shields to defend against each of the dangerous technologies. The Strategic Defense Initiative, proposed by the Reagan administration, was an attempt to design such a shield against the threat of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. But as Arthur C. Clarke, who was privy to discussions about the project, observed: "Though it might be possible, at vast expense, to construct local defense systems that would 'only' let through a few percent of ballistic missiles, the much touted idea of a national umbrella was nonsense. Luis Alvarez, perhaps the greatest experimental physicist of this century, remarked to me that the advocates of such schemes were 'very bright guys with no common sense.'"
Clarke continued: "Looking into my often cloudy crystal ball, I suspect that a total defense might indeed be possible in a century or so. But the technology involved would produce, as a by-product, weapons so terrible that no one would bother with anything as primitive as ballistic missiles.""
The threat of terrorism is greatly overplayed by various interest groups. I wonder if the accumulated effect of this attempt to oust terrorists is creating more harm than it's hindering.
More people die in a year on the US roads than have died from all terrorist attacks accumulated.
Some of those that died on the roads most probably chose a car instead of the tediousness that is airports.
If the US government truly where interested in hindering terrorists and saving lives, they wouldn't hide the fact that they are eavesdropping, they would make it obvious and transparent, and possible for each individual citizen to know what they know about you.
> More people die in a year on the US roads than have died from all terrorist attacks accumulated.
I'm a little tired of this argument. "Only" 3000 people died in 9/11. Yet look at the effect that 9/11 had on the world, versus 100 times that many automobile deaths.
As much as we'd like to think the only bad outcome of a terrorist attack is loss of life, that's not really the biggest outcome. It is the impact on society, like it or not.
At the end of the day, terrorism is primarily a tool to affect political situations, their effect on public health situations is not really the point; it is that political damage that is worrying to governments.
99.99% of the impact of 9/11 was due to the reaction, not the initial action.
Using the vast impact of 9/11 as an argument for further reaction is getting everything backwards.
We would have been vastly better off following 9/11 if the government had gone with a "keep calm and carry on" mentality rather than the "everybody panic and start invading things" reaction they actually had.
Terrorism is like a bee sting, and our reaction to terror attacks in the US is like an allergic reaction. The difference is that the US has control over its own immune system, and could choose not to be allergic if it wished.
That "political damage" is almost all caused by the government, and can't be treated like an independent entity. The excessive impact of terrorism cannot be used to argue that the government needs to pay attention to terrorism, because it is that paying attention which causes the excessive impact in the first place.
certainly if politicians felt it was feasible to allow terrorist attacks to occur without mass hysteria resulting, they'd be doing that? Perhaps if all the media in the country were state run, and the government simply suppressed reporting of incidents like that in Boston, they'd be able to contain the hysteria. But as it stands, we have a free press, and on 9/11 as well as in Boston, the government did absolutely nothing in the immediate sense to cause the resulting hysteria; the 24/7 media did that all by themselves. The government's overreaction to all of it was only after the populace collectively freaked out (which you can argue, they could have downplayed, but again the government is extremely politically reactive - which is likely better than them not giving a shit about political opinion); this because they were informed by the media, which itself is an institution resulting from what the populace wants, as the media is a for-profit, market driven entity.
Why would politicians want to prevent the hysteria that follows a terrorist attack? It harms the country, but it benefits them enormously, allowing them to expand their powers, and boosts their popularity and chances of reelection. The Bush administration, for example, managed to leverage 9/11 into support for the invasion of Iraq, something they had wanted to do since long before, but would have had a hard time selling otherwise. They then rode the wave of hysteria to reelection despite the fact that Iraq had gone fairly disastrously for them.
The government's overreaction was after the populace had freaked out, that is true, but silence can be damning as well. Silence lets hysteria breed. If the President had gone live on national television with a "keep calm and carry on" message, I believe it would have helped a lot. Instead, the government treated it as an existential threat, invoking the NATO charter, declaring a "war on terror", etc. None of this was necessary, and it was all highly damaging, although not to the people in power.
> but it benefits them enormously, allowing them to expand their powers,
yeah, I know, my personal opinion is that Cheney definitely did that; invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism was evidence of that. I don't see this as Obama's motive though, I think he just wants there to be no terrorist attacks under his watch so that he doesn't sustain more political losses on that front alone (look how much flak he took for benghazi). If there was not such a huge political price for terrorism, I get the impression it would be easier for him to reign in the NSA/FBI. But I can't prove any of this, I'm a dem so I'm biased, etc.
I don't know if I agree with you about Obama, although it's certainly a possibility. Even if we grant that, though, the government isn't one person, and the political losses you mention would come from Congress. The Bush administration had Congress eating out of their hand, but Obama very much does not. And no, sadly, I have no idea how to stop Congress from being a bunch of jerks.
> and on 9/11 as well as in Boston, the government did absolutely nothing in the immediate sense to cause the resulting hysteria
I don't recall hysteria in Boston. There was more hysteria over the Moonites than bombings. But I don't think anyone has the bar so low to say that it's all good as long as gov't doesn't create the hysteria. The gov't should be able to dampen hysteria rather than swing it higher.
Was there anyone hysterical over that? They prevented him from easily fleeing. I mean they had a dead police officer and a shootout where multiple very loud bombs went off.
Worse crimes happen with some frequency yet the response is never nearly that large. Boston is the only time I have ever heard of an entire major American city being shut down on order to chase a single criminal. His crime was not exceptional, aside from the "terrorism" angle. Such a massive overreaction is hysteria.
Worse crimes than injuring 246 people and killing 5? The only reason it might not be "exception" is the number of heroes that prevented victims from bleeding out. Without immediate aid, nearly everyone that lost a limb would be on the deceased list.
> The difference is that the US has control over its own immune system, and could choose not to be allergic if it wished.
Nope. Democracies are constrained to the strategic analysis ability of the average voter. Absent a radical eugenics campaign, the average voter will continue to cast superficial, uninformed votes. Democracies die because they vote for their own destruction.
P.S. If the people had voted in a rational nuclear power plan, the Middle East would be just another backwater. The bin Laden clan would be just another bunch of towelheads squabbling over camels.
The broader effect that 9/11 had is precisely the unnecessary overreaction to (or deliberate overplay of) what happened.
This "impact on society" is exactly what terrorist have in mind. Instead of keeping a cool head (like the Norwegians did after their 2011 attacks) we're playing right along with what a terrorist would want to achieve.
> As much as we'd like to think the only bad outcome of a terrorist attack is loss of life, that's not really the biggest outcome. It is the impact on society, like it or not.
That's a very dark view of mankind. You are basically saying people are so stupid that it's always going to be that after the loss of life, we'll invade lots of countries and spend a trillion dollars, and give up all of our freedoms.
So then, what is the purpose of terrorism? Is it equated with just plain old psychotic mass murdering with no other purpose than the joy of inflicting suffering? No. Terrorism is about obtaining a political result. First line in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism): Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion. I certainly don't think terrorism's effectiveness is necessarily as simple as, "people are so stupid", I'm sure the Wikipedia article and many others can discuss its rationale in depth.
The point is, equating terrorism to other events strictly in terms of loss of life does absolutely nothing to help the situation. If you want to change the societal psychology of terrorism, that's a noble goal, and if you can figure that one out, the governments of the world will gladly make you the richest man in history.
> So then, what is the purpose of terrorism? Is it equated with just plain old psychotic mass murdering with no other purpose than the joy of inflicting suffering? No. Terrorism is about obtaining a political result.
Of course that's the purpose of it. That's why preventing an overreaction would be more effective at fighting it than falling into the trap of getting trolled by them.
"Another idea is to erect a series of shields to defend against each of the dangerous technologies. The Strategic Defense Initiative, proposed by the Reagan administration, was an attempt to design such a shield against the threat of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. But as Arthur C. Clarke, who was privy to discussions about the project, observed: "Though it might be possible, at vast expense, to construct local defense systems that would 'only' let through a few percent of ballistic missiles, the much touted idea of a national umbrella was nonsense. Luis Alvarez, perhaps the greatest experimental physicist of this century, remarked to me that the advocates of such schemes were 'very bright guys with no common sense.'" Clarke continued: "Looking into my often cloudy crystal ball, I suspect that a total defense might indeed be possible in a century or so. But the technology involved would produce, as a by-product, weapons so terrible that no one would bother with anything as primitive as ballistic missiles.""
The threat of terrorism is greatly overplayed by various interest groups. I wonder if the accumulated effect of this attempt to oust terrorists is creating more harm than it's hindering.
More people die in a year on the US roads than have died from all terrorist attacks accumulated.
Some of those that died on the roads most probably chose a car instead of the tediousness that is airports.
If the US government truly where interested in hindering terrorists and saving lives, they wouldn't hide the fact that they are eavesdropping, they would make it obvious and transparent, and possible for each individual citizen to know what they know about you.
I just don't get their logic.