dagblog - Comments for "Boston and the End of the War on Terror"

The comment about the x-ray

Verified Atheist — Thu, 30 May 2013 15:17:50 +0000

In reply to DOne quick nitpick. Something

The comment about the x-ray machine also threw me a little bit (although I do agree with the Doc's larger thesis). The technology used in developing the backscatter x-ray machine will mostly likely have applications in other fields, very likely in ways we can't guess yet. Remember that the internet itself sprung up from DARPAnet, where DARPA is Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for those who were unaware of that fact.

Thanks. This post was perfect

Flavius — Mon, 27 May 2013 00:55:27 +0000

In reply to Boston and the End of the War on Terror

Thanks. This post was perfect as were the comments. Neither could be improved .

It was a shock to be made to think again about 10/11 . The photos posted all over Manhattan of those who hadn't come back and never would. Taking the place of a well crafted obituary in the Times. Or a tombstone.

Jane Harman's opinion.

artappraiser — Sun, 26 May 2013 23:30:18 +0000

In reply to Boston and the End of the War on Terror

Jane Harman's opinion.

Actually I have to say I have

Elusive Trope — Sun, 26 May 2013 22:46:04 +0000

In reply to You can't have an airline

Actually I have to say I have to give it to the 1961 hijackers who dropped leaflets then had the pilots fly back to Morocco

Oh and I might add that the

artappraiser — Sun, 26 May 2013 19:29:43 +0000

In reply to DOne quick nitpick. Something

Oh and I might add that the plotters of 9/11 had no idea that the Towers would fall; their intent was mainly to paralyze the world economy by bringing down air travel, in the process also upping the ante to hijackers of yore by forcing all passengers to be co-suicide bombers.

You can't have an airline

artappraiser — Sun, 26 May 2013 19:20:08 +0000

In reply to DOne quick nitpick. Something

You can't have an airline industry without high security and a cat-and-mouse game about what perps will try next. It's the nature of the mode of transportation; that actually started becoming clear in the 1960's. Increasing hospital infrastructure and shrugging off attacks as "what will be will be" aren't an answer in this instance. Not enough people will fly to keep the industry afloat if the chances are high it's not going to be safe. And those that want to wreak havoc (not just terrorists) will take advantage if security becomes lax again. (Likewise the industry doesn't work without enough air traffic control. In this instance, security is part of the infrastructure, not much different from safe bridges, not to mention roads relatively free of speeders and drunk drivers. It's a libertarian slant to argue against.)

DOne quick nitpick. Something

Elusive Trope — Sun, 26 May 2013 18:01:43 +0000

In reply to Boston and the End of the War on Terror

DOne quick nitpick. Something like the xray machine us nor just a drag on the economy. If it wasn't made in the US (which it probably wasn't), it needed to be imported through our docks. Then it had to be trucked to the airport and installed. People have to operate the machine. The delay in travel means passengers are more likely to spend money at the food court and buy magazines. Since every other foreign airport, at least in the developed countries, also have tight security, if not more intense, it doesn't cause a global economic disadvantage.

Of course, Mike. But it is

Doctor Cleveland — Sat, 25 May 2013 16:30:29 +0000

In reply to I generally agree with your

Of course, Mike. But it is important to distinguish between small-scale attacks, to which we will always be vulnerable, and major catastrophic attacks like September 11. And it's important not to plan as if every attack were September 11. That's not an appropriate response to the actual threat.

September 11 required dozens of active participants, an international support network, years of planning, and nearly half a million dollars in funding. We can prevent jihadist networks from doing something like that again by keeping pressure on them so that they don't have the resources or the breathing room to put together an attack on that scale. And there's no doubt that we will continue applying that pressure.

What we can never prevent is small-scale do-it-yourself cells like the Tsarnaev brothers. A small handful of misguided people can always put together an amateur terrorist cell (using whatever ideological excuse). And we can't run our society on the misguided hope that we could crack down enough to keep attacks on this scale from happening.

We will always need to be actively breaking up terrorist networks to keep them from getting strong enough to carry out another September 11. But we can't build our policy around the assumption that all terrorist attacks are September 11.

Michael makes some good

Michael Maiello — Sat, 25 May 2013 05:06:18 +0000

In reply to Boston and the End of the War on Terror

Michael makes some good points about the differences between 9/11 and the marathon bombings. But I think you're right, Doc, that the infrastructure of a well planned city is just an advantage, no matter what. Also, there are intangibles from living and working closely together. Post 9/11 New York was pretty remarkable, culturally. In a lot of ways, I think our biggest cities are culturally flexible enough so as to be unbreakable in the face of terrorism. That's an amazing asset.

I generally agree with your

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 25 May 2013 02:25:14 +0000

In reply to Boston and the End of the War on Terror

I generally agree with your thesis, but for the record, New York City also has excellent hospitals. Those hospitals didn't have much to do on 9/11. There weren't many wounded people to treat.

Boston's hospitals were able to treat victims so effectively because the bombs were not very deadly. They were too low, for instance, which is why there were so many lost legs--as opposed to lost heads.

So while I fully support disaster preparedness, it's important to recognize the limits of such preparations. It's also important to distinguish between a small-scale, amateurish attack, which is relatively easy to "live through" as you put it, and a massive, organized, catastrophic attack, such as the one that started the whole war on terror in the first place.