Posted on 09/25/2002 5:25:41 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
|
Objectively viewed, terrorism by small secretive groups has been a minor problem in the last century. Compared to war, openly declared governmental genocides, and death from natural causes, terrorism is a trivial threat. All too often human beings waste the most time fearing the least important danger. Look at my list in the second sentence; I have listed threats to humanity in the order that we usually fear them, but in the reverse order of actual hazard. "Natural" problems like aging and disease, caused by lack of wealth and technology, have always killed the majority of human beings. In the 20th century, genocides by "their own" governments came next, killing nearly twice as many as wars between states (according to R.J Rummel in his Death By Government). So war was a poor third, and 20th century terrorism didn't even register on the death-o-meter. If we worried in a logical progression, we would worry first about government's parasitic drain on the world economy and drag on technological progress, next about uncontrolled governments destroying their own subjects, and last about war. Terrorism would be way down there, below car accidents but above shark attacks. However, terrorism is truly dangerous if it frightens people into supporting policies that make defense against the real megakillers more difficult. A rational response to terrorism will not only protect against terror attacks, but far more importantly will strengthen civil society against the major threats. Any rational response is going to have to flow from civil society; governments benefit from terrorism too much. But we can evaluate politicians based on their support or opposition to rational antiterrorist measures. (It might be nice if the politicians would stop funding terrorism in the first place, but that's too much to ask.) The basic principle of effective defense against terrorism is the same as the basic principle of the Internet: HAVE NO CENTER. Just as the Internet cannot be destroyed by attacking any one central point, neither can a free society. Of course our society is far from free, and there are many vulnerable points. Many of these vulnerabilities will cost less than nothing to remove, since their removal will free the economy to be more efficient. For instance, the phone and cable monopolies have drastically slowed the natural growth of fast Internet connections. This forces more people to commute into vulnerable large buildings, and causes more business travel on vulnerable large airplanes. It would cost less than nothing to stop enforcing these information-tollway monopolies, and it would harden the nation against attacks or natural disasters of any kind. Analogously, the practice of granting monopolies to power companies increases the damage from a terrorist attack on power distribution systems; if there were competing power companies, then it would be harder to knock out power to everyone in a given area. In addition, lower-cost electricity from competing power companies would be a boost to the whole economy. Further preventing dispersion (the best defense against the hypothetical terrorist with an ex-Kazakh nuke) are government transportation monopolies. If cities had competing private bus lines, jitneys, trains, VTOL air taxis, etc., then not only could they be more spread out but also they would be less vulnerable to transportation disruption. Local zoning codes have made American housing into expensive Styrofoam-and-particleboard huts, with subtle variations that increase cost and prevent adoption of stronger construction methods and materials. In many cities, it is actually illegal to construct an underground concrete dwelling… because of fire codes requiring windows in each bedroom. It has been estimated by civil defense experts that it would take 438 one-megaton H-Bombs to destroy Los Angeles… if the houses were underground, reinforced concrete structures. The medical guild system and the FDA's approval system make us more vulnerable to biological attack. If biotechs were as unregulated as Silicon Valley, all the old diseases like anthrax would be totally outclassed by on-the-shelf medications. Homes and/or doctor's offices would have many more automated diagnostic devices. Under the current system, individuals can't even buy the antiquated forty-year-old smallpox vaccine for themselves! A biological attack today would almost certainly run its course before any new cures came out of the more than 12 year FDA approval process. Central control makes the economy vulnerable to attacks on banks. Restrictions on the encryption used to protect banking transactions mean that one day everyone may wake up to find all the bank balances reading zero… or a trillion. Of course a cyber-terrorist would be hard put to do more damage than the Federal Reserve does with its routine policies, so this might not be any additional threat. Of course the idea of central control and an obedient, domesticated populace is what made the 9-11 attacks possible. Government disarmed the aircrews. According to the government's own account of 9-11, it was this policy of central control that allowed terrorists armed with sharp objects to make airliners into missiles. A rational response to the 9-11 attacks would have been to immediately restore the Second Amendment rights of airliner crews. Of course the opposite policy was followed, more central control was imposed, and now airliners are more vulnerable than ever. In spite of the fact that airliners are still easy victims, they are far from being the most likely future targets. It makes little sense for a terrorist group to take over an aircraft in a suicide attack when they could do far more damage with no risk to themselves. Even ignoring the possibilities of chemical or biological weapons, ordinary fertilizer bombs could kill hundreds of thousands of people. All the terrorists have to do is take a "fishing trip" around the nation's reservoirs in flood season, dropping off a few tons of explosive at the base of several dams. And there is no reason to ignore chemical, biological, nuclear, or any other sort of weapon. Thus all centrally directed "anti-terrorist" measures are worse than useless against terrorism. If airliners were somehow magically made safe, the terrorists would just attack dams. If dams were guarded, the terrorists would use viruses. Meanwhile we have to pay every year for all the useless "security" lines around the targets that won't be attacked, just as the French spent their 1930s defense budgets on the Maginot Line that only covered part of their border. If American politicians insist on interfering in every nation's conflicts while steadily making our own country more vulnerable, then terrorism may indeed become a major killer in the 21st century. The best defense against attacks or natural disasters of any kind is a free society. Every politician, whether President, congressman, or mayor, who supports measures to increase central control and take away freedom is making the next terrorist attack more destructive. Bill Walker is a Research Associate at the Shay-Wright lab at UT Southwestern Medical Center. |
1. Tom Daschole
2. Hillary Clinton
3. Osama bil Clinton
4. Any other rabid RATS
Everyone knows that lightning strikes are rare, but you still don't stand under a tree in a thunderstorm. Terrorism tries to make you afraid to go to the mall, even though you know the chance of a terrorist attack is rare.
-PJ
Say it isn't so! We can't have people running around . . . being free . . .
So what this says is that most people have been dying of old age. I don't really see this as a problem. I'm willing to live with the risk of dying of old age or even disease, no help needed from terrorist, thank you.
This sounds an awful lot like "we deserved it, we had it coming."
Every politician, whether President, congressman, or mayor, who supports measures to increase central control and take away freedom is making the next terrorist attack more destructive.
This sounds even more like "we had it coming". And frankly I'm sick of hearing this, like some kind of symptom of battered wife/child syndrome. When it comes to national security, I have no objection to taking away the freedom of a person who is a threat to this country, be it a terrorist threat, or something less cowardly but just as harmful.
While we may not be able to take away the freedom of someone who makes "jokes" in a public restaurant about "bringing down" another building or bridge on American soil (though a part of us wishes we could), we certainly can do more to restrict the freedom of those we have reason to believe are a threat. And there is nothing uncivilized about that.
Hmm... pure genius. Tell it to the gaping hole in the ground in lower Manhattan. And to the thousands of victims who died in an act that didn't make sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.