4 ms·
US State Dept Issues Worldwide Travel Alert
- stephengoodwin 11y agoHas the State Department issued a Worldwide alert like this before?
- headcanon 11y agoBest I could find: > The last time the State Department issued a similar worldwide alert was Dec. 2014. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/23/state-department-worldwide-travel-alert-terrorism-islamic-state-/76281856/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/23/state-departme...
- twcooper 11y agoYes. >The most recent worldwide travel alert was issued in December 2014, and prior to that in August 2013, September 2011, and May 2011. Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/state-worldwide-travel-alert-paris-terrorist-attacks/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/state-worldwide-trave...
- Smushman 11y agoThis article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34907009 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34907009 says "Previous worldwide travel alerts were issued in May 2011, September 2011, August 2013 and December 2014"
- morgante 11y agoYes, there have been 4 such alerts in the last 5 years alone. They're really not a big deal and shouldn't cause anyone to avoid travel.
- fredkbloggs 11y agoSo if there are "worldwide alerts" all the time (which is true), and they're no big deal and you shouldn't do anything differently because of them, why have them at all?
- dragonwriter 11y ago"You shouldn't avoid travel" is not equivalent to "you shouldn't do anything differently because of them". There are a number of specific actions recommended in the alert (all of which are of potential value for any travel, but are of elevated importance to not neglect with the elevated risk level, which while still quite low for any individual incident of travel, is higher than normal.)
- morgante 11y agoPersonally, I completely ignore them. I think the main reason they're issued is political: it shows they're doing "something" and if there is another attack soon it gives them political cover.
- vkou 11y ago... Meanwhile, any American traveler is more at risk of being ran over by a bus on their way to the airport, than of being targeted by "conventional or unconventional weapons."
- codegeek 11y agoI never get this line of argument. Yes the probability of getting killed by a vehicle is perhaps higher based on Stats but this does not mean that we should not pay a bit extra attention to these travel advisories, right ? Why does it have to be a zero sum thing ?
- cjslep 11y agoIt is similar to spending 90% of a developers time optimizing code that only takes 5% of total time, and most of it is external API calls he or she can do nothing about. Still, in the case of human life, I have nothing against trying everything to make people aware. Its just the fearmongering bit I dislike. If I am going to spend a significant amount of time extending my life, I'm going to focus on the big things that prevent an early demise: exercise, diet, and having meaningful relationships.
- dstyrb 11y agoAgree, it's about possible reduction of harm. A notice that cars crash is not going to stop people from using cars. A notice that foreign travel is not safe will deter some people.
- sliverstorm 11y agoThere's also the relative-to-baseline nature. Foreign travel has always had risk; this alert declares the risks are temporarily higher. If the gov't said "For the next week, car travel will have heightened risk", people might take notice.
- e12e 11y agoActually, given the time of year, I'm guessing car travel will have heightened risk for next week. Due to snow/freezing in places. The risk (and change in risk) is probably much greater than this warning about "dangerous evil people in the foreign lands".
- dvcc 11y agoAs rare as this may seem, the State Dept. has issued four previous worldwide travel alerts [May - Aug 2011, Sep 2011 - Dec 2012, Aug 2013, Dec 2014 - Mar 2015]. This amounts to about 20% of the past five years.
- djcapelis 11y agoThis is one of the least actionable and most poorly thought out travel alerts I've seen the Department of State hand out in quite some time. (Listing those three groups all in the same alert is just completely wild.) And the Department of State already issues travel alerts that seem more akin to someone's parents getting worried than real security risks. Shameful. I want my government to be less afraid.
- Alex3917 11y ago> I want my government to be less afraid. Given that this expires a week before super tuesday, I wouldn't be surprised if this is more about helping Hillary than about any fears of the government.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago> Shameful. I want my government to be less afraid. It's not that they're afraid, it's that they want you to be afraid, so you'll either look the other way or cheer while they fuck you over some more in the name of "security".
- scintill76 11y agoThey go beyond just naming those 3 groups: > Additionally, there is a continuing threat from unaffiliated persons planning attacks inspired by major terrorist organizations but conducted on an individual basis. May as well just say, "We've just discovered that people can do bad things, at any time and for any reason." Random individuals are a "continuing threat" that might resolve by February 2016 when this notice expires. Really looking forward to the apparent cure for human nature they've got in the works!
- dragonwriter 11y agoThe elevated-above-normal-levels threat from the named groups and individuals inspired by them is expected to be a temporary situation. That doesn't mean that bad people doing bad things is a problem that is expected to be resolved.
- saidajigumi 11y ago> U.S. citizens should exercise vigilance when in public places or using transportation. Be aware of immediate surroundings and avoid large crowds or crowed places. This is really crazy text. It reads like, "U.S. citizens everywhere should scuttle like rats through alleys and sewers." I see little use in telling every U.S. citizen traveling anywhere to always be on guard. Humans just don't have this capacity for eternal heightened vigilance, nor do I think it's even healthy to ramp people up this way when their real change in global risk seems very, very limited.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago> "U.S. citizens everywhere should scuttle like rats through alleys and sewers." But sewers are where the Surgeon General tells me I'm at increased risk of contracting communicable diseases. And alleys are where the FBI tells me I'm more likely to be mugged or raped. Whatever are we to do?
- saidajigumi 11y agoThis is precisely why you should never get your hopes up about results from a mouse study. (mods forgive me, I just couldn't help that. ;-)
- polishninja 11y agoI am leaving for Paris tomorrow. Trip was planned a few months ago. We are still going but this alert is a bit concerning.
- e12e 11y agoParis probably haven't been as safe as it is now, for decades.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoWhat, exactly, is the point of these vague and overly-broad travel alerts? To try and kill the tourism industry?
- colinplamondon 11y agoI love that there's a travel alert for the planet, but not for American cities. Lived in Boston for the last four years, was there during the Marathon Bombing. I'm now traveling within Europe, and am pretty 100% confident it's safer somewhere like Poland or Croatia than any first tier American city. But, really, who cares? Change of dying while commuting is catastrophic compared to a terrorist attack. The Parisians had the right idea - day after the attacks, everyone fills up the cafes. Which is the opposite of what we did in Boston - cower at home, while a couple kids with IEDs shut down an entire state. Terrorists only win when the people they attack are chickenshit. Each time the West gets hit, it gets a little harder to worry about the next one. Just like you might get into a car accident driving to work, some Islamist whackjob might blow himself up at a concert, market, or restaurant. When the risk is going outside and doing things that involve other people, there's no different action to take as an individual. It becomes background risk.