6 ms·

The Germans were the border of the nation of Rome from 100 BC until the Empire fell. They once slaughtered an entire Republic field army--and remember the Repub

The Germans were the border of the nation of Rome from 100 BC until the Empire fell. They once slaughtered an entire Republic field army--and remember the Republic's army consisted of most of Rome's young, able-bodied citizens. They defeated Augustus, among other emperors, and eventually sacked Rome. Twice. Before making the whole thing collapse. So, small difference.

rayiner 14y ago
So because we're geographically isolated, there is nothing to worry about? Modern technology doesn't change the circumstances any?
- cynicalkane 14y ago
  The point I'm trying to make is the differences between terrorists and invading Germans are all of them. You might as well compare terrorists to the Irish potato famine.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    My point isn't that islamic terrorists are like Germans. It's that Schneier's comment smacks of an inability to contemplate that anything bad could happen to the U.S., much like I imagine the attitude was in Rome before Germans proved them wrong.
    - setrofim_ 14y ago
      I'm pretty sure he has the ability (and even makes a game out it[1]). What Schneier is saying is that U.S. citizens should not let the country's policy be dictated by panic blown-out-proportion reactions to imaginary threats. [1] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/04/sixth_movie-plo.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/04/sixth_movie-pl...
- jlgreco 14y ago
  What exactly are you envisioning here? If not a sacking of the country by terrorist hoards, what exactly are you proposing the parallels between the fall of Rome and our modern society will be? I can envision terrorist attacks doing major irreversible damage to our society, but only through the fear, spiraling out of control, that they have the potential to cause. A fear so excessive that it could figuratively drive our society off the cliffs of Saipan. Presumably (since you appear to be advocating fear, and since it would be plainly idiotic to suggest a sacking is immenent) you are suggesting a different mechanism. So what is this mechanism?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    With modern technology, you don't need to sack New York to cause tremendous damage. People downplay the magnitude of 9/11, but as I noted somewhere else today, it involved more deaths than Pearl Harbor, and economic damage of almost $100 billion (without accounting for the economic impact on the stock market). Is a terrorist attack ten times stronger inconceivable? An attack on a nuclear power plant could cost into trillions (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-could-cost-trillions-of-dollars-and-bankrupt-us.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-co...). Maybe not irreversible damage, but crippling nonetheless. Is it totally pointless to fear one or more appropriately, to take affirmative actions to avoid one?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      You really think that could bring "The Fall of New Rome"? An attack a hundred times more deadly (which would be something like 3% of NYC's population dead, if my mental math does not betray me, or something a little less than 10x The Blitz.) than 9/11 would be a tragedy with only a few parallels in history. It would be an astronomically staggering blow to our economy. Hell, the mangled remains of the economy after such an attack probably would not even be recognizable as an economy at all... But bring down our society? No, not unless we allowed our fear to betray us. Not unless we abandoned any pretenses of maintaining our morale. Not unless we permit it to destroy us. To be honest, it really just sounds like you've been having too many Red Dawn fantasies. There are no more barbarian hoards; sorry to disappoint.
antman 14y ago
This is a movie simplification. The Romans copied battle styles from local armies during their conflicts. When Romans started having money problems they started outsourcing their armies to local people and they stopped their public works. When the army started getting less relevant to local affairs and only a tax imposing machine, the locals would turn against the Romans and join the militia. The Germanic leaders were also trained in the Roman army, and the "barbarians" pretty much knew how to conduct warfare and they also knew their weaknesses. So they fought a war of attrition, that forced the Romans to spread out. Soon enough the Romans knew they could not sustain their wars. So the "barbarians" tried different things until they found fight patterns that Rome did not have the technology to beat in a economic way. The Roman nobility had not lost it's privileges but nobody was interested in fighting, and they soldiers were only doing it for money which was not even enough to retire afterwards. So it is totally irrelevant with the current situation.

rayiner 14y ago

So because we're geographically isolated, there is nothing to worry about? Modern technology doesn't change the circumstances any?

cynicalkane 14y ago
The point I'm trying to make is the differences between terrorists and invading Germans are all of them. You might as well compare terrorists to the Irish potato famine.
- rayiner 14y ago
  My point isn't that islamic terrorists are like Germans. It's that Schneier's comment smacks of an inability to contemplate that anything bad could happen to the U.S., much like I imagine the attitude was in Rome before Germans proved them wrong.
  - setrofim_ 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure he has the ability (and even makes a game out it[1]). What Schneier is saying is that U.S. citizens should not let the country's policy be dictated by panic blown-out-proportion reactions to imaginary threats. [1] http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/04/sixth_movie-plo.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/04/sixth_movie-pl...
jlgreco 14y ago
What exactly are you envisioning here? If not a sacking of the country by terrorist hoards, what exactly are you proposing the parallels between the fall of Rome and our modern society will be? I can envision terrorist attacks doing major irreversible damage to our society, but only through the fear, spiraling out of control, that they have the potential to cause. A fear so excessive that it could figuratively drive our society off the cliffs of Saipan. Presumably (since you appear to be advocating fear, and since it would be plainly idiotic to suggest a sacking is immenent) you are suggesting a different mechanism. So what is this mechanism?
- rayiner 14y ago
  With modern technology, you don't need to sack New York to cause tremendous damage. People downplay the magnitude of 9/11, but as I noted somewhere else today, it involved more deaths than Pearl Harbor, and economic damage of almost $100 billion (without accounting for the economic impact on the stock market). Is a terrorist attack ten times stronger inconceivable? An attack on a nuclear power plant could cost into trillions (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-could-cost-trillions-of-dollars-and-bankrupt-us.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-co...). Maybe not irreversible damage, but crippling nonetheless. Is it totally pointless to fear one or more appropriately, to take affirmative actions to avoid one?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    You really think that could bring "The Fall of New Rome"? An attack a hundred times more deadly (which would be something like 3% of NYC's population dead, if my mental math does not betray me, or something a little less than 10x The Blitz.) than 9/11 would be a tragedy with only a few parallels in history. It would be an astronomically staggering blow to our economy. Hell, the mangled remains of the economy after such an attack probably would not even be recognizable as an economy at all... But bring down our society? No, not unless we allowed our fear to betray us. Not unless we abandoned any pretenses of maintaining our morale. Not unless we permit it to destroy us. To be honest, it really just sounds like you've been having too many Red Dawn fantasies. There are no more barbarian hoards; sorry to disappoint.

antman 14y ago

This is a movie simplification. The Romans copied battle styles from local armies during their conflicts. When Romans started having money problems they started outsourcing their armies to local people and they stopped their public works. When the army started getting less relevant to local affairs and only a tax imposing machine, the locals would turn against the Romans and join the militia. The Germanic leaders were also trained in the Roman army, and the "barbarians" pretty much knew how to conduct warfare and they also knew their weaknesses. So they fought a war of attrition, that forced the Romans to spread out. Soon enough the Romans knew they could not sustain their wars. So the "barbarians" tried different things until they found fight patterns that Rome did not have the technology to beat in a economic way. The Roman nobility had not lost it's privileges but nobody was interested in fighting, and they soldiers were only doing it for money which was not even enough to retire afterwards. So it is totally irrelevant with the current situation.