is terrorism still a threat? well, obviously teh answer is yes, but the question is, how big a threat? and was 9-11 an outlier? I dont have all the answers in my post but I am asking the questions.
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 16 comments }
On this day, you are asking the wrong question.
Never Forget Means Never Forgetting
Off the top of my head…
I think the threat of large-scale terrorism is relatively low. 9-11 was definitely an outlier in terms of numbers, and that particular method won’t work again. I think for any future attack to hurt or kill that many people, the terrorists would have to have a little nuke or a biological/chemical weapon, and apparently we’re doing a decent job of preventing those scenarios.
I think the threat of smaller-scale terrorism remains. As long as a terrorist act can be carried out by one guy with one bomb, it’s basically impossible to eliminate. Even a few such attacks on American soil could cause huge disruptions to society if they caused people to, well, experience terror and start avoiding shopping malls or public transportation.
So I guess when you ask how big a threat is it, it depends on if you’re talking about how many individual people might be directly affected as they were on 9/11/2001, or if you’re talking about how possible it is that terrorism could have a big effect on our society. I worry more about infrastructure disruption than I do about another 9/11/2001.
My way of not forgetting:
http://nielsenhayden.com/110.html
Every year, I’m sure it’s not going to make me cry again, and then I read it.
Aziz,
Just to be clear, I am not taking you to task here. I just honestly believe the question you asked is appropriate for yesterday or for tomorrow, just not for today.
I wonder how Aziz’s question would have been answered on 9-10-01.
Elizabeth, I’m not sure what you base your opinion that we are doing a “good job” in preventing a small nuke set off by terrorists. Preventing that hinges on preventing the likes of North Korea and Iran from acquiring nukes and we are failing miserably at that.
I will happen. I have no doubt. If, in 50 years, it hasn’t, I would be shocked.
deadrody,
I’m not *remotely* an expert in these matters, but I have read articles in recent years that seem to indicate that ‘suitcase nuke’ threats are somewhat overrated. Nuclear devices that are portable in the sense that one person can carry them are apparently just not that easy to make or maintain. So what we’d be worried about is a bomb in a truck or something of similar size, and it would have to either cross our borders in some way that we wouldn’t notice, or be brought in piece by piece by a terrorist cell we didn’t detect, and would have to be sponsored by a group that was willing to spend a *lot* of money and have it go down the rabbit hole if the attempt failed. I’m just not sure that I think that is all that likely, although that’s far from saying that I think it’s impossible.
John, perhaps askin the question is my way of remembering? i appreciate your clarification, but are we really going to start holier-than-thouing on 9-11 about how much we “remember” it? The question is valid every day, and today possibly most of all, because if 9-11 was an outlier that makes it all the more tragic.
To paraphrase Spock from the new Star Trek movie, if crew morale were better served by my weeping and roaming the halls, then i would gladly do so. But my interest in 9-11 is “never again”, not just “never forget”.
Kevin, im sure you are making a point but am unclear on what. can you elucidate? it almost sounds like you are critiquing the Bush Administration there, but thats pretty unfair – teh CIA was quite aware of the threat posed by Al Qaeda in a theoretical sense. But 9-11 was not te sole example of terrorism, as my links in my post point out. Terrorism was already a problem before 9-11. Its the unique scale of the attacks that sets it apart, and the question is were they just lucky? now that we are aware, is there any chance of it happening again?
I find the idea that another 9/11 attack couldn’t happen again to be powerfully naive and is the sort of mindset that will pave the way for it to happen to again. It’s a 9/10 question. Pure and simple.
If it happened before, it damn well can happen again.
The question is absurd and, to me, feels like it’s rooted in a “the worst is behind us” mentality. Assume the worst is yet to come and you will save lives.
another attack can and probably will happen. but 9-11 was preventable, and it took us by surprise. a similar attack has a much highe rburden to succeed.
nukes are never going to be sneak weapons. you cant backpack-size them or sneak them into a port overnight. the “hidden on a oil tanker” scenario is not possible anymore (f if it ever was) since no ship gets close to our ports without being inspected, and having a record of origin.
and any fool on an aircraft who tries to take over is going to get a lot of feet up his ass. we are a pack now, not a herd. though of course the locked aircraft cockpit doors are also a pretty effective simle solution.
im not saying its impossible. but the question of 9-11 being an outler is not the same as saying it cant hapopen again.
Is terrorism still a threat?
Answer: Yes.
More specific question: Is Al Queda still a threat?
Answer: I think so, but I’d really like to see how big of a force it remains, where it is operating, who are its de facto leaders, etc, etc, etc.
Never Forget.
–HB
Kevin,
I would never say it couldn’t happen. It absolutely could. Probably not another attack using exactly the same tactics, because I have trouble believing that so many airline pilots would comply with terrorist demands now that it’s understood that they might not just be taking hostages, but something of similar devastating impact. (To be honest, I never understood people who didn’t get that on 9/10. Did they not know terrorists had tried to blow up that same building in 1996? Were they not watching TV on April 19, 1995? Did they not remember Pearl Harbor?)
So the question isn’t “could it happen?” As Aziz said, obviously the answer is yes. It’s always going to be yes. I do think attacks of similar magnitude are relatively unlikely, but I would never equate that with impossible.
My question is: why is global terrorism so completely Islamic in nature? My second question is: why is regional terrorism so overwhelmingly Islamic in nature?
These are two questions we have to ask and accept the harsh reality of the question. Sad thing is to do so, and hence to protect the innocent, earns us ostracization and a giant red “I” on our forehead.
Lawrence Wright wrote the definitive book on the rise of Al Queda, called, “The Looming Tower.”
He says Al Queda has only 300 or so members today, although he still considers them a big threat.
–HB
The question reminds me of the story of the guy who jumped off the Empire State Building. As he passed the 30th floor, someone yelled to him “How are you doing?” to which he responded “So far, so good.”
Of course 9/11 is an outlier. Unfortunately, from a political standpoint that’s irrelevant. Any resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. will necessarily respond to such an event (my view is that President Gore would have done virtually everything that President George W. Bush did , including invading Iraq, but I seem to be an outlier in that belief).
Yes, terrorism is a threat. As I pointed out in my memorial post, we haven’t really responded prudently to the threat yet. In my view there are only two prudent responses: interrupt one of the critical success factors for the attacks on 9/11 or decide we’d rather live with the risk.
“Guys with a grievance”, the factor most frequently referred to including in this comment threat, isn’t one of the critical success factors.
Dave, great comment, you inspired me to respond but it got so big that i posted it to my blog instead.
Dont leave comments there, though. i hate the comment system at my blog and never use it. Lets continue the discussion here at DW on the new post here.
Comments on this entry are closed.