Causing Terror On the Cheap 448
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."
Well, Duh! (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
So who benefits financially?
This is news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong end of the Cold War (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
All theatre, all the time... (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
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:follow the money (Score:2, Insightful)
Those who build, sell, and service security products.
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists have... robbed us of many of our guaranteed rights and freedoms
No, they didn't. We gave them up.
Re:Goals (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Terrorists have won (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically for those terrorists in the set of ( Authoritarian Politicians, Kleptocrats, Corporatists).
For these soulless creatures, they've profited and gained beyond measure.
Re:Goals (Score:1, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Wrong end of the Cold War (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Well, Duh! (Score:4, Insightful)
The terrorists are a control freak's wet dream come true.
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Goals (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Of course... Who didn't know this? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It cost them $4200 plus many killed or captured (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:1, Insightful)
who is "we"?
you are NOTHING
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Wrong end of the Cold War (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Goals (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite the nature of the case (an anomaly), you've mischaracterized how law enforcement works.
The reason you can't blame police for not protecting you is because then everyone would sue when they got mugged or their car got broken into... despite the ruling, law enforcement generally does try to prevent crimes and protect citizens, and they generally do a pretty good job, but you just can't sue them if they didn't.
You think police around the country stopped trying to protect you when this ruling was handed down, or do you think it was business as usual?
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:2, Insightful)
So long as the US refuses to face the reality that terrorism is a result of foreign policy and not this LIE that 'they hate our freedom'...we'll always be under defending ourselves from aggrieved people who have no voice except through violence...
Despite all this wikileaks shows that the next war with Iran is already being ramped up. Is that going to make us safer? Please. Americans have to get real about what the goals of government is....its not to keep us safe.
mondoweiss.net
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:It cost them $4200 plus many killed or captured (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Well, Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
More lies from the George Bush School (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:2, Insightful)
And when you get arrested in China you have no rights at all. SO much easier.
Re:Simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)
You know that the US offered bounties on a lot of the jihandis, right? Bin Laden has a $25 million bounty on his head, and he's still not caught:
"The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden." http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden [fbi.gov]
Re:Goals (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:1, Insightful)
It struck me as odd that the cost-benefit analysis was done using financial accounting, I'll agree with you there, but not that the GP point that it's about terror. The jihadist (for lack of a better word) military operations units are all about terror. The movement itself is about something different, and, as you implied, addressing the real issues might have more payoff.
War, the old saying goes, is an extension of diplomacy. Terrorism is a strategy of war, as is blitzkrieg, island hopping or siege. Terrorism is a means to get the other side to comply by becoming unwilling to continue to fight. Terrorism is exactly about terror. If you use terrorism and your opponent loses the nerve to keep fighting, you have won, as sure as if you sent columns of troops and tanks into their capital after a naval blockade and aerial attack and forced them to sign papers giving you what you want.
Of course terrorism is cheap. That's why you do it. If the jihadists could mount a more symmetric military campaign that would create the Caliphate in a year, they would. Terrorism trades cost for speed.
Re:Well, Duh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Geez when did the parent say that we should all go to China? Isn't the whole point of a democracy that we can point out these problems and try to fix them so that we can avoid becoming like a country that has less freedoms?
As citizens, you get the government that you tolerate. If we become complacent simply because we're better than country X, then slowly over time, we'll become country X.
Re:Goals (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Goals (Score:3, Insightful)
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