4 ms·

> The potential attack surface for terrorism is huge, and there is a lot of potential for damage (both loss of life and economic damage). I have heard quite a

> The potential attack surface for terrorism is huge, and there is a lot of potential for damage (both loss of life and economic damage). I have heard quite a few strong arguments for how different pieces of vital infrastructure require extra protection from terrorism and also for military defence (power, hospitals, water treatment, banking, data centres, etc.). However, from my albeit limited experience, I feel like the vast majority of terrorism is very low tech and unambitious. A quick look at Wikipedia shows that in US in the last 20 years, the vast majority of terrorist attacks are shootings, followed by starting fires and bombs. What can you realistically do with a grant to prevent these from happening? > $14 million has been sought for law enforcement communication, SWAT training, and bomb detection [in Florida 2019-2020]. This is just one example from the article, but my gut instinct is that you could save many more lives and much more infrastructure spending that on preparing for natural disasters rather than terrorism - especially in a state that had tens of billions of damage a year earlier. Both are important, but I think public budgets should be carefully scruntinised - this smells of corruption and/or "defence theatre".

droopyEyelids 6y ago
The most fearsome terrorist attack, in my mind, is the "VRA" Vehicle Ramming Attack. A vehicle is such a high energy, dangerous piece of equipment. Our whole society, at least in North America, is built on the idea that people treasure their vehicles and will never act in a way that damages them. To my eyes, that is the type of assumption that makes an ass out of everyone. The gun control debate pales in comparison to what would happen if people decide their terroristic point is worth their life, and they have a car. And even kids have cars. We've got no protection against it. Only the shared cooperation of our society- and for whatever reason, people of late seem to be working to tear apart that cooperative fabric of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack
- tweetle_beetle 6y ago
  Agreed, and I think VRAs sum up the futility of trying to prepare for terrorism. Yes we now have a few concrete blocks around a few specific areas in a few city centres to make everyone feel better, but that article lists 28 notable VRA attacks in the last 10 years in the _whole world_. The attack surface is impossibly large, and no amount of "law enforcement communication, SWAT training, and bomb detection" is going to reduce it.
  - actuator 6y ago
    Not justifying mass surveillance but this is where the argument for mass surveillance comes in. Though I would argue about its effectiveness. I remember the recent British incidents claiming the suspect was under watch, but they failed to prevent those. Maybe they are not talking about the ones they prevented, but there are certainly examples where they failed even with info about it.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      Definitely not effective, unless you go full 1986. Softer forms of surveillance may prevent some attacks, but still carry huge potential for abuse which is not even close to worth it IMO. We have to remember terrorism barely kills anyone in relative terms.
      - actuator 6y ago
        > in relative terms. In US certainly, some parts of the world definitely have it worse. But I think the fear and divide it generates between ethnicities/religions/countries is definitely higher.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      You can be under surveillance but unless the government is able to jail you on a thoughtcrime or take away your ability to use a vehicle (if you're ok ramming into a crowd you'll probably be ok carjacking somebody to get the required equipment), there's very little that can be done to prevent it.
- cascom 6y ago
  I think that this is actually one of the more compelling arguments that the threat of terrorism is overblown - there is literally 0 barrier to someone committing/attempting to commit these attacks - and yet they happen incredibly infrequently...which might mean there aren’t very many terrorists floating around...
- nitrogen 6y ago
  A friend told me a story once about someone being crazy with a car (e.g. driving onto a playground or something like that), so someone else in a giant lifted truck just ran over the hood of the car to stop them. I guess in the US, it makes sense that the answer to car attacks would be bigger cars to stop them.
  - troyvit 6y ago
    Some say that the best antidote to a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. I guess that thinking could apply to cars too?
jimmaswell 6y ago
It's impossible to say how much potential "highly ambitious" terrorism has been deterred by these measures, but reasonable to assume at least some amount. A terrorist attack also has a much wider chilling effect for psychological reasons - it represents an existential threat, unlike a natural disaster.
- tweetle_beetle 6y ago
  The article is about one-off preparedness grants, which are probably unlikely to have any impact on "highly ambitious" terrorism. But you're right, we'll never know. As a child, I was very aware of the psychological effect of terrorism - the IRA set off a bomb very close to my home and it was covered extensively in all the media of the time: TV, radio, newspapers. However, I would argue that putting security theatre into public life has an equally profound psychological effect - it confirms that you are constantly at risk. As a child, seeing more police officers with submachines guns (very unusual at the time) and the removal of rubbish bins and the closing of some roads to cars around where I lived only increased anxiety. As an adult, I'm aware that this too has a chilling effect, but with little benefit gained. I'll have to politely disagree on natural disasters not being an equivalent existential threat in a world where climate change is increasing their frequency and potency.

droopyEyelids 6y ago

The most fearsome terrorist attack, in my mind, is the "VRA" Vehicle Ramming Attack. A vehicle is such a high energy, dangerous piece of equipment. Our whole society, at least in North America, is built on the idea that people treasure their vehicles and will never act in a way that damages them. To my eyes, that is the type of assumption that makes an ass out of everyone. The gun control debate pales in comparison to what would happen if people decide their terroristic point is worth their life, and they have a car. And even kids have cars. We've got no protection against it. Only the shared cooperation of our society- and for whatever reason, people of late seem to be working to tear apart that cooperative fabric of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack

tweetle_beetle 6y ago
Agreed, and I think VRAs sum up the futility of trying to prepare for terrorism. Yes we now have a few concrete blocks around a few specific areas in a few city centres to make everyone feel better, but that article lists 28 notable VRA attacks in the last 10 years in the _whole world_. The attack surface is impossibly large, and no amount of "law enforcement communication, SWAT training, and bomb detection" is going to reduce it.
- actuator 6y ago
  Not justifying mass surveillance but this is where the argument for mass surveillance comes in. Though I would argue about its effectiveness. I remember the recent British incidents claiming the suspect was under watch, but they failed to prevent those. Maybe they are not talking about the ones they prevented, but there are certainly examples where they failed even with info about it.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Definitely not effective, unless you go full 1986. Softer forms of surveillance may prevent some attacks, but still carry huge potential for abuse which is not even close to worth it IMO. We have to remember terrorism barely kills anyone in relative terms.
    - actuator 6y ago
      > in relative terms. In US certainly, some parts of the world definitely have it worse. But I think the fear and divide it generates between ethnicities/religions/countries is definitely higher.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    You can be under surveillance but unless the government is able to jail you on a thoughtcrime or take away your ability to use a vehicle (if you're ok ramming into a crowd you'll probably be ok carjacking somebody to get the required equipment), there's very little that can be done to prevent it.
cascom 6y ago
I think that this is actually one of the more compelling arguments that the threat of terrorism is overblown - there is literally 0 barrier to someone committing/attempting to commit these attacks - and yet they happen incredibly infrequently...which might mean there aren’t very many terrorists floating around...
nitrogen 6y ago
A friend told me a story once about someone being crazy with a car (e.g. driving onto a playground or something like that), so someone else in a giant lifted truck just ran over the hood of the car to stop them. I guess in the US, it makes sense that the answer to car attacks would be bigger cars to stop them.
- troyvit 6y ago
  Some say that the best antidote to a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. I guess that thinking could apply to cars too?

jimmaswell 6y ago

It's impossible to say how much potential "highly ambitious" terrorism has been deterred by these measures, but reasonable to assume at least some amount. A terrorist attack also has a much wider chilling effect for psychological reasons - it represents an existential threat, unlike a natural disaster.

tweetle_beetle 6y ago
The article is about one-off preparedness grants, which are probably unlikely to have any impact on "highly ambitious" terrorism. But you're right, we'll never know. As a child, I was very aware of the psychological effect of terrorism - the IRA set off a bomb very close to my home and it was covered extensively in all the media of the time: TV, radio, newspapers. However, I would argue that putting security theatre into public life has an equally profound psychological effect - it confirms that you are constantly at risk. As a child, seeing more police officers with submachines guns (very unusual at the time) and the removal of rubbish bins and the closing of some roads to cars around where I lived only increased anxiety. As an adult, I'm aware that this too has a chilling effect, but with little benefit gained. I'll have to politely disagree on natural disasters not being an equivalent existential threat in a world where climate change is increasing their frequency and potency.