4 ms·

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 s

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?

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?