Why isn't terrorism an existential threat to the US? Or rather, why don't I believe it is?
Several reasons.
Conventional terrorism is not an existential threat to the US because there aren't very many people here who want to be terrorists. Let's list the potential resident nutjobs who might commit such acts:
1) Tim McVeigh-style racist scumwranglers: small in number. Their most terroristically useful members are probably in Iraq or Afghanistan right now.
2) Arabs/Pakistanis/Chechens affiliated with Al-Qaeda: also small in number. The Chechens tend to be focused on Chechnya. Most of our Arab citizens are Christians, who are not fond (she said, with elegant understatement) of the Osamamaniacs; most of our immigrants from the subcontinent are not Pakistani.
3) Converted muslims: even smaller in number. Hard for them to win the trust of Al-Qaeda and make it into a cell.
4) Crazed suicide cultists: even tinier. Twelve people do not pose an existential threat to the United States unless they gain control of the Blossom syndication rights.
Moreover, in any immigrant group, the number of people even theoretically prone to carrying out terrorist acts, rather than tacitly agreeing with them, is tiny. Israel has millions of angry Arabs on its border with nothing to do but seethe as their economy falls into ruin. Even during the height of the infitada, pre-wall, you're talking about a handful of aimless young men.
Terrorism is not, as many have pointed out, a product of poverty; it is a product of lack of opportunity + limited political rights. Immigrants here have full political rights and plenty of economic opportunity. The United States does not, as France does, ban their hijabs; nor deny them citizenship like "guest workers" in any number of countries; nor deny them employment like Scandinavia; nor does it (AFAIK) wink, as Britain does, at practices like fourteen-year-old cousin marriage that prevent assimilation. We just don't seem to have a critical mass of disaffected immigrants with extreme religious views. It's telling that 9/11 relied on visitors, while bombings in Europe and Bali tend to employ local talent.
It's also harder for Al-Qaeda to get here. North Africa is very close to Europe. Most Arabs or Pakistanis trying to make their way up through Mexico would attract quite a bit of notice before they got there.
But what about nuclear terrorism?
Well, a bigger worry. But prime targets like New York and DC are, or so I am given to understand, now fairly well covered with radiation detectors. The kind of primitive bomb that terrorists are likely to be able to get their hands on is low yield; they aren't going to be able to wipe out a city with a suburban ground burst, and they'll have a hell of a time getting such a bomb into the air.
Also, the countries they might get bombs from--North Korea, Pakistan, possibly Iran in the future--don't have that many of them. How likely are they to give a precious nuke to a group they don't control? It's not inconceivable. But it's not very likely either.
At this late date (oh famous last words) I think it's unlikely that the infamous missing Soviet suitcase nukes exist. First of all, these bombs require expert maintenance; you're now talking about an armament that is 20 years old. Second of all, if someone had one, and had sold it to a terrorist group, my guess is that it would have gone off somewhere by now.
But even if there were a nuclear blast, it would be an unimaginable tragedy, but not an existential threat. The Soviet Union was an existential threat to the United States. Even 200,000 dead in a horrific tragedy is not.
Obviously that is an unacceptable cost that we should take steps to avoid. But I consider the probably of such an outcome extremely low, at least in the next ten years or so. I very much doubt that Al Qaeda or its brethren will manage to achieve anything as big as 9/11 again in the foreseeable future. Not because Homeland Security is protecting us, but because anyone who tries to hijack a plane will face a mob of passengers who believe they are already dead. Even a machine gun probably wouldn't be an adequate weapon in that case, and the difficulties of getting a machine gun onto a plane, then deploying it without explosively decompressing the plane, are very large.
Udpate A friend points out that the line about racist crazies being in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily be taken the wrong way. I was not in any way trying to imply that the military is full of Aryan Nation types; only that such groups probably can't stage an attack without members who are ex-military, like McVeigh himself. Those members have probably been called back to the Guard and sent to Iraq. Or so I mote. I do not think that these are a sizeable portion of the military; only that the military, like any group that contains millions, is likely to have a few rotten apples scattered in there.
We also need to protect our chinese cookie factories, tho. Are we ok on that front?
In my opinionation, that's a very good post.
"Unless they gain control of the Blossom syndication rights."
Is that for or against syndication? Count me among the Blossom fans.
Wasn't that perfectly obvious before dusk on 9/11?
But prime targets like New York and DC are, or so I am given to understand, now fairly well covered with radiation detectors.
Yes, but what if the terrorists discover boxes?
Nice incest joke, btw. That's certainly a fresh one!
Even a machine gun probably wouldn't be an adequate weapon in that case, and the difficulties of getting a machine gun onto a plane, then deploying it without explosively decompressing the plane, are very large.
Someone doesn't watch Mythbusters. It turns out that firiing a gun through the fuselage of a plane won't cause explosive decompression. You actually need a rather large explosion to accomplish as much.
Right, but machine guns tend to leave a nice uneven line of bullets holes for the air pressure to work on.
I agree that a terrorist detonating a nuclear weapon in a US city is a low probability event for, let us say, the next 20 years, but such weapon technology is slowly spreading throughout the world. Such an event is probably a certainty in a long enough run of time (a century?). And it is silly to completely discount the possibility that a country with technically advanced weapons will lose control of one or more of them, either accidentally or purposefully.
I very much doubt that Al Qaeda or its brethren will manage to achieve anything as big as 9/11 again in the foreseeable future. Not because Homeland Security is protecting us, but because anyone who tries to hijack a plane will face a mob of passengers who believe they are already dead.
I have considerably less faith that passengers would fight back even if they were certain that their lives were in danger. The average middle- or upper-middle class suburban white man, in other words a member of the predominate demographic group on many airline fights, simply cannot conceieve of slamming his fist into another man's face no matter what the circumstances. "Never fight back" is a lesson incessantly drummed into our heads from childhood on. Consider that schoolyard fistfights, not long ago just a normal part of growing up, today are treated as dire transgressions bearing harsh punishment.
Were the US to abandon fragile Iraq, which is the current political question, it would become a badland in which the Iranians would have significant destructive influence. In such a situation, it is more likely that individuals could be persuaded either by threats against their family or in other ways to be the bearers of terroristic danger which the Iranian covert state sponsorship could place in proximity to American interests in ways that a wandering nogoodnik would find near impossible to do. The fact that they would be outside any internal Iranian feedback system would be a bonus for the Iranians.
The feeding frenzy on false information continues...good going MM !~
"Tim McVeigh-style racist scumwranglers: small in number. Their most terroristically useful members are probably in Iraq or Afghanistan right now."
Hard to say, because most of the racist scumwranglers are pretty big Iraq War opponents*, so they might be refusing to go. OTOH, the ones that aren't currently serving in the armed forces are probably less useful as terrorists, though there may be former members who got some amount of training who are useful.
* - Hence the Esquire article "Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama, with such delightful reasons as "he's against the Iraq War, which was pushed by dual loyalty Jews (hello Joe Klein), he's against free trade, McCain is too pro-immigration like Bush, and at least he didn't marry a white woman." Of course, the black nationalist interviewed supports McCain because Obama is, of course, a sellout.
It's possible that your low risk assessment is a main driver of your view of US foreign policy in general and Iraq in particular.
Others would disagree with your assessment. They would view your confidence as misplaced, sort of like the folks who were sure that "Man will never break the sound barrier."
Personally, I think that terrorism risks are real. I am not worried about the folks on your list (the "known unknowns"). I am worried about the folks off our radar.
I am less worried about nukes than I am about bioterror, coordinated hackers, EMP's, anti-sattelite weapons, attack of the power grid & refineries, etc.
Our reliance on technology increases just as the ability to destroy technology becomes more powerful and deployable. A handful of bright, motivated folks can do a lot more damage today than an army could do 70 years ago.
"1) Tim McVeigh-style racist scumwranglers: small in number. Their most terroristically useful members are probably in Iraq or Afghanistan right now"
Interesting comment. What do you mean by this?
"But prime targets like New York and DC are, or so I am given to understand, now fairly well covered with radiation detectors"
The point of terrorism is to instill fear and prompt overreaction. A nuclear attack on Amarillo or Charleston would be just as effective for that purpose as one on NY or DC, though the latter two would result in more death and destruction.
On the machine gun...
A man portable machine gun on automatic fire runs out of ammo in less than a second, though on semi-auto it could hold a crowd off for quite a while. Still, it wouldn't get you into the cockpit. Apart from that, dsh2va is correct - firearms pose very little structural threat to the aircraft, even under pressurization.
"I have considerably less faith that passengers would fight back even if they were certain that their lives were in danger"
Don't be so sure about that - it would require a leader (or more correctly an initiator), but even a year prior to 9/11, a Southwest passenger was beaten to death by other passengers after he attacked the cockpit crew inflight and the captain called for help on the PA. People who think they're going to die can be pretty vicious.
Megan wrote:
Most Arabs or Pakistanis trying to make their way up through Mexico would attract quite a bit of notice before they got there.
One little known fact is that since the Shah of Iran went there for exile in '79 (and most likely because of US pressure), is that anybody with worm-looking characters or crecents in their passports are not welcome, they get turned back at the airport (happened to a friend that was a Iranian-Born US resident). Anybody with a black beard is also subject to aditional scrutiny (it happened to me twice).
If a muslim terrorist wanted to infiltrate nto the US, he most likely will travel to Canada where they don't mind muslims and the 4000 mile border is for all practical purposes unguarded.
You do make a great point about our subtle conditioning to "let the authorities handle it" and "don't get involved." I think this explains, together with the total surprise factor, why incidents like Columbine & Virginia Tech can happen in the face of so much potential resistance.
Plus even if someone does think about responding, their brain is probably screaming "don't do it!...lawsuit! lawsuit!"
lol -- mention a machine gun on a plane and suddenly everyone's talking about nunchuck skills.
I can see how you got so popular with the dorky internet male right/libertarian set.
Tim McVeigh-style racist scumwranglers: small in number. Their most terroristically useful members are probably in Iraq or Afghanistan right now"
Please don't slime the troops.
Your later clarification that you were only expressing an opinion that being in the US military makes for a more effective terrorist is belied by many effective terrorists or freedom fighters that never served. In the US, the biggest determinant of someone becoming a traitor spy or terrorist, according to the FBI, is someone whose ethnicity, culture, religion has them place 1st loyalty to a foreign country or cause.
Also, in Tim McVeigh's case, his beef was with the government and what he saw as abuse of power, not a racial or ethnic minority.
"3) Converted muslims: even smaller in number. Hard for them to win the trust of Al-Qaeda and make it into a cell."
Except that Al Qaeda expressly wants to recruit this kind of individual and has used at least two - Padilla and Reid.
Nothing like the fervor of the newly converted, too.
Seriously, terrorism has little chance to be an existential threat, but the more you post about this, the more I want to disagree. Especially when you so nicely explain that all the right wing scum are in the military already.
Oh, and your explanation is LAME. Unless they really do teach our troops to make fertilizer bombs in basic training, why would a soldier be any better than, say, anyone with a technical or engineering background.
"In the US, the biggest determinant of someone becoming a traitor spy or terrorist, according to the FBI, is someone whose ethnicity, culture, religion has them place 1st loyalty to a foreign country or cause."
Bingo. But that's not very PC to worry about the new immigrant from China (or Pakistan or Taiwan or Israel) because that would be profiling. Any time spent overseas and you will realize many many foreigners get green cards or citizenship only for convenience. Its a tough call because there probably are a lot of newly minted patriots as well.
There are very few human agencies that pose or ever posed an existential threat to the United States. The list more or less is: in 1776, the British Crown; during the Cold War, the USSR.
Even if the South had won the Civil War, the US would have continued to exist. Even if Hitler had won WW2, the US would have continued to exist.
My point is that there are lots of threats that are worth a lot of worry and a lot of effort to prevent that aren't existential. It would be small comfort if DC or NY or Boston or ... were nuked, even by a "low-yield" bomb, to be able to say "the USA still exists."
As for the passengers-fighting-back-against-hijackers question, since 9/11, starting with Flight 93, the record is very good. Peter and TakeFlight are, I think, much too pessimistic. If you've ever watched those "middle or upper-middle class white men" (not to mention their female colleagues) board a business flight, you'd have much less doubt of their willingness to connect fist (or laptop) with a hijacker's face.
Terrorism is not, as many have pointed out, a product of poverty; it is a product of lack of opportunity + limited political rights.
No, it is a product of a murderous religion (or ideology) + psychopaths. The failed religion (or ideology) might lead to lack of opportunity and limited political rights, but there are large swaths of Africa, for example, that have zero opportunity and zero political rights without suffering from terrorism.
The ideological addition is necessary to forestall the criticism that not all terrorism is religiously-based (see Tamil Tigers, or the Anarchist movement a hundred years ago). I also realize that not everyone who is a Muslim, for example, is a terrorist; that's why the psychopathy is necessary. The religion (or ideology) provides the already psychopathic individual the excuse and motivation to commit violence and provides the opportunity for them to organize. The non-psychopathic members of such a movement gloss over the murderous aspects or are at least unwilling to follow through on them.
I would agree that our current terrorism threat is not an existential one. Ensuring that terrorists and the regimes that support them (*cough* Iran *cough*) don't get nuclear weapons is necessary to keep the threat non-existential.
Let's not forget that there likely isn't such thing as a real Chechen terrorist. Most of the large acts of terrorism attributed to Chechens (for example, the 1999 apartment bombings, and likely the Moscow theater hostage crisis) were actually committed by the Russian government to drum up support for whatever anti-Chechen move it was about to make. It infuriates me to no end when people lump Chechen terrorism in with all the rest. Everyone noticed when Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya were assassinated, but nobody bothered to read the things that they wrote that got them killed.
(And given the FSB's links to the operational chief of al-Qaeda, it makes you wonder if they aren't a puppet, too...)
You realize that your ambition to become a Fox News Commentator has just taken a major setback. And not one word about the existential threat of gay marriage. Or illegal immigratants. Oh, the shame your mother feels!!!
so we sent our next generation of crazy Tim McVeighs off to die in Iraq.
Well, now we finally know what that war was good for....
As for the passengers-fighting-back-against-hijackers question, since 9/11, starting with Flight 93, the record is very good. Peter and TakeFlight are, I think, much too pessimistic. If you've ever watched those "middle or upper-middle class white men" (not to mention their female colleagues) board a business flight, you'd have much less doubt of their willingness to connect fist (or laptop) with a hijacker's face.
I don't quite see how you could reach a conclusion of that sort just by looking at the passengers as they board. It all comes down to how people will react, or not react, in a crisis situation, not how they look. Which isn't to say that I completely disagree with your view, it may indeed be that people today are more willing to resist, but given decades of "never fight back" indoctrination (worse now than ever, what with school children being suspended merely for resisting unprovoked attacks), I just can't be too hopeful.
"Terrorism is not, as many have pointed out, a product of poverty"
Tell that to the residents of Gaza.
All I can say is, read the book. The empirical data does not back up the intuition.
Megan, I'll have to disagree with you on several fronts.
1. As someone that works in the radiation detection industry, I can tell you that the detectors covering out cities will do next to nothing to protect us from a bomb. The first problem is that there are too many false positives, and the personel that uses them are too poorly trained. The more serious problem is that by the time you detect a bomb, it is entirely too late. A detector tells you that there is s source somewhere. Most dont tell you what the source is, and none can pin point its location. In other words, there might be a nuke in NY city, or there might be a some contaminated rebar in the next crate. Also, it is relativly easy to shield the emittions of a nuke so that it can be much harder to find. Detectors do well at preventing building materials from being transfered, or detecting construction residue, but they are not much good against a bomb. If you consider getting any gov't backing, moving the bomb is fairly simple matter too. Get an old cargo plane, and load it on board. Get a few suicidal pilots. Fly it toward the US and do not respond to any radio calls. Fighters will be scrambled, who will order the plane to land at the nearest airport (likely near a well populated area). Comply with the fighters, and allow them to escort you. Once the plane is reasonably close to a populated area, detonate. We dont shoot down planes that dont have authorization to be there, and we have no way of scanning the plane while it is in the air.
2. While nukes are rare, they are becoming less so. If Iran develops a weapon, safe to assume the technology will be transfered to Syria. Saudi Arabia will have to develop its own weapon to maintain the balance of power. Ditto for UAE.
3. Radical Islam views the current conflict as a continuation of the crusades. As such the take a very long term view, and plan further than 10 years ahead. Our economy took a big hit on 9/11. Several attacks in similar or greater magnitude, can cause our economy enough damage so as to prevent us from projecting our military force all over the globe (which is expensive, as Iraq is teaching us). If that was to happen, we would surely loose our influence in Saudi Arabia along with other places, further damaging our economy. The end result may knock us off the lone superpower standing. While that is not quiet an existantial threat, its bad enough. If, at the same time Iran manages to unify several Muslim countries, than we may find ourselves having to deal with Ahmadenajad (or more likely his succesor) as equals. Obviosuly, this is a worst case scenario. But that is what we could well get if we just leave things alone
What you are willing to slime ex-military, but not professors of mathematics, or extreme environmentalist? What thanks to give people willing to put their lives at risk, for others.
joe-
Thanks for defending Tim McVeigh! You win today's KnuckleDragger award for abject stupidity and hate!
Defending McVeigh how do you get that?
Isn't the mere fact that we're quibbling over whether the threat is "existential" pretty good evidence that it's at least "very serious"? What's the practical significance of the "existential" issue? (Sorry if I'm missing context from prior postings, but if there was any, I don't remember it.)
And since we're quibbling, I think it would be correct to say that the nature of the threat may indeed be existential (if you think that the long-range political goal toward which the terrorists are working is that the US as currently constituted should cease to exist). What you're talking about here are practical impediments to their achieving that goal over the short-to-medium term by direct acts of destruction.
Lefties, per Marx, see economics as driving everything, so the disaffected must be so because they're poor, and so lefties reflexively prescribe education, training, programs, aid, or something of the kind.
They ignore the fact that philosophy/relgiion/ideology can drive aberrant behavior. What education or aid would have stopped kamikaze pilots?
Rickm, I think the Gaza/Palestinian problem has poverty as a consequence, rather than a cause. It's a symptom of the dysfunctionality of their culture generally. Let's face it, they had two millennia to build a thriving society, but couldn't. In two generations Israel succeeded where they had failed. That drives their disaffection, IMO: being shown up so badly.
"I think the Gaza/Palestinian problem has poverty as a consequence, rather than a cause. "
Of being occupied or being a dirty rotten sandy a-rab?
Before you can claim if something is an existential threat, I think you need to define "existential".
There's a lot of people who (not unreasonably) believe that the US fundamentally changed post-9/11 (preemptive war, coercive interrogations, indefinite detentions, warrantless surveillance, etc.). How much of this is due to Bush personally versus a general change in popular opinion is up for debate, but I observe that Sen. Obama has talked about invading Pakistan and is now endorsing the current set of FISA reforms - I think the balance of evidence says that there's been a sea change in public opinion.
Given enough change, at some point I think it's fair to say that the country is no longer the same, i.e., the country we knew no longer exists. Some would say that we've already past that point, but I submit that the changes to date ain't nothing compared to what would happen in the aftermath of a nuclear blast. Oh, we'd still have a Constitution, a President and a Congress. We'd probably still have elections. But I bet we don't have freedom of religion (for Islam)...
Given that context, I definitely think terrorism (one nuclear event or numerous conventional attacks) represents an existential threat.
"Of being occupied or being a dirty rotten sandy a-rab?"
Rickm, have you stopped beating children yet?
Isn't the mere fact that we're quibbling over whether the threat is "existential" pretty good evidence that it's at least "very serious"? What's the practical significance of the "existential" issue?
The only thing this "quibbling" evidences is that fear of terrorism exists as a spectrum.
Ultimately, "very serious" is a relative term, while "existential" is concrete. Did the 9/11 attacks do "very serious" damage to the United States? Arguably, not. Certainly, they needn't prompt us to assess our response without regard to cost, as an existential threat would.
On a somewhat different tack: why would Iran build a nuclear weapon and give it away, in light of the likely US response to its use? Realistically, it's clear that if Iran gave a nuke to Al Qaeda which Al Qaeda used in New York City, we'd be firing an ICBM or several at Iran within the hour. Supporting the insurgency in Iraq is a great way to fight a war against us through a proxy. Giving a nuke to Al Qaeda would be suicide.
I would just point out that Senator McCain actually said that he thought that “radical Islamic extremism” and not just “terrorism” was the greatest long-term threat. Terrorism may be a component or sub-issue of the greater problem of radical Islamic extremism but if Megan’s intention was to challenge McCain’s point, she should probably try to address what he actually said he thought was the greatest long-term threat rather than going off on a tangent about Timothy McVeigh and suicide cults.
Canada's not so far now, is it? Got any Muslim crazies there? Nice liberal immigration policies. Nah, no problem.
I must have missed the memo: is Al-Qaeda a closed shop? Commit a terrorist act without an Al-Qaeda union card and the NRLB will be all over your ass?
Seriously, I don't where to start on this one.
1) Terrorists don't need to join Al-Qaeda.
2) Converted Muslims would pass without difficulty in our society. What about Richard Reid?
3) How many terrorists does it take? You seem to think that terrorist have to achieve regimental strength to be effective. Nineteen guys perpetrated 9/11. Nineteen over 300 million is a pretty small number.
Really? What about the Weather Underground? Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Did he lack opportunity? ("Dad, can I run a division of Commonwealth Edison?" "Sure, son. Wouldn't you to lack opportunity and become a terrorist or anything.") Did he lack political rights? ("Damn, the lines at my voting station are long. Guess I gotta become a terrorist.")
Try again on explaining the drivers of terrorism. This one doesn't wash.
As accurately point out, a threat to the physical existance of the United States just isn't there. And only at most twice in our history has been.
On the other hand, a threat which succeeds in causing the United States to change beyond all recognition? The current crop of terrorists actually seem to be rather successfully motivating our government to move in that direction. Unfortunately.
Let me amplify SG's point: You may be missing the nature of the "existential" threat to the US posed by terrorism. It's not the threat of literally being blown to pieces or having our infrastructure fall apart under attack. It's the risk of our society abandoning its liberal foundation under what, while objectively only moderately harassing, is perceived at the time as fatally threatening.
Let me make a prediction: If two nuclear devices explode in American cities within two months of each other, the U.S. population will, at 70%+ majorities, vote to repeal any and all provisions of the Bill of Rights that they perceive to hinder our defense against "the enemy." They will vote to intern or expel all muslims, citizen or otherwise. They will give the president (whoever he might be at the time) broad rights to arrest and hold anyone indefinitely at will. They will authorize torture. They will authorize any and all military operations against anyone the president certifies as aiding terrorists, and scream bloody murder if we don't attack someone Right Now. They will support censorship (if not outright arrest) of anyone publicly opposing any of these things.
Substitute a mysterious plague for one of the blown-up cities, and my prediction still holds.
*That*, in my usually not very humble opinion, is the "existential" threat to our nation. It is materially internal. The terrorists are just the catalyst.
(Of course I hope I'm wrong. And I pray that we never have to find out.)
Cheers
-- perry
Megan, I think you overstate the effectiveness of radiation detection devices. That said, I also think you miss the most important reason why a nuclear terrorist attack is unlikely to the point of being nearly impossible: Mutually Assured Destruction. Even if a foreign government were willing to provide support for a terrorist group, it would not be stupid enough to give them a nuke for purposes of blowing it up in the US, and probably not for any purpose. Why? Because the US in particular has more than enough nukes to completely wipe any country responsible for doing so permanently off the map. Sure, there would be a possibility that the sponsoring country's role wouldn't be discovered, but that is the sort of secret that is hard to keep - too many people would have to be involved in the cover-up. So in order for a country to give a terrorist group a nuke or two, that country would have to first decide that it was willing to trade massive casualties in one or two American cities for at least a 50% chance that it would lose ALL of its cities.
I know that the hard right likes to argue against this point by claiming that the Islamic governments that have or seek nuclear weapons are not rational actors who want their countries to continue to exist, but are instead seeking to bring about the 12th Imam by causing the Apocalypse; unfortunately, this counterargument ignores basic reality, such as who actually controls the nuclear programs in those countries, and the actual actions of those countries in the recent past.
Realistically, it's clear that if Iran gave a nuke to Al Qaeda which Al Qaeda used in New York City, we'd be firing an ICBM or several at Iran within the hour.
In the absence of some immediate and formal acceptance of responsibility by the government of Iran, don't you think the President would await proof that the nuke came from Iran, as opposed to Pakistan, NoKo, or any of the other possible suppliers that may then exist? Is Iran unable to cover its tracks or circumstantially implicate someone else? Would AQ give up its suppliers, and would we believe them if they did, all within the hour? And even if we could satisfactorily prove in short order that the nuke was manufactured in Iran, would the President launch a nuclear strike in the face of, say, an official Iranian claim the the bomb was stolen by rogue military agents sympathetic to AQ in direct contravention of clear orders from the Iranian government?
I'm sure the threat of immediate and devastating retaliation is something the Iranian government would have to seriously consider before supplying a nuke to AQ, but I don't think it's anything like "clear" that it would in fact occur.
[i]Realistically, it's clear that if Iran gave a nuke to Al Qaeda which Al Qaeda used in New York City, we'd be firing an ICBM or several at Iran within the hour.[/i]
I, too, would like to quibble with this point. If the president cares too much about public opinion, he would be slow to order a massive retaliation. There would be considerable backlash if the end result was 5 million dead Americans and 50 million dead Persians. I could well be wrong, but I have a hard time envisioning Obama ordering a massive nuclear strike under any circumstances. Someone should ask him. And, there is always a possibility of there being a president who is even farther to the left of Obama come 2012 or 2016.
You forget the biggest reason for terrorism....polygamy. When there are masses of unmarriagable disaffected unemployed men roaming the streets because women in harems are economically better off, the idea of 47 virgins if made a martyr seems to have an upside. Especially since these people seem to believe their scriptures literally.
No has mentioned that to the old Soviet Union, the mujahadin in Afghanistan turned out to be a fairly large part of their collapse. It was not the Chechen terrorists (objection noted) blowing up things in Moscow. It was their version of the 'long war' that helped the regime into the grave.
Exaggerated responses and unlimited spending on non-productive wars fought on the terrorists home turf didn't turn out so well for them.
So as long as these countries are run by rational people, we’re OK. For a minute there I thought we might have something to worry about. /sarc
Seriously, though, who does control these countries’ nuclear weapons? I have no idea. Do you? (Do they?) Having traveled extensively in the Third World, you’ll pardon me if I don’t place a lot of trust in the organization and competence of those countries.
Also, forget the MAD hypothesis. First, lefties opposing every action by the US encourages those overseas to think that the hands of those calling for retaliation might be stayed. Second, the MAD scenario presupposes the WMD came with a return address in, e.g., Tehran. Almost certainly, the provenance of the attack would be murky, at least initially, and perhaps indefinitely. And how unequivocal would the evidence have to be to justify a nuclear attack that would kill millions? Even with thousands of witnesses and film footage of planes flying into buildings, untold hundreds of thousands of morons today still assert that 9/11 was a demolition job. The evidence for who nuked us would certainly be less clear than that regarding what happened on 9/11.
Suppose it took, say, six months to figure out who attacked us. Let us further posit the extremely unlikely case that the evidence was unequivocal. Would, say, Obama, in cold blood, then nuke that country? I doubt it very much indeed, and I bet so would various assorted “rational actors.”
Use a little imagination. Suppose you ran one of those countries, and wanted to attack the US. (Can we agree that some of those countries would at least like to attack us?) You supply Al-Qaeda with the weapon, and then after the attack, you announce that rogue elements within your government gave the weapon to Al-Qaeda. You quickly stand some number of poor slobs in front of firing squads, and say “Our bad” to the US, and promise to tighten up security so it won’t happen again.
Now what? Do we nuke ‘em? On what grounds? What would you do? Seriously – I’d like to know.
"There's a lot of people who (not unreasonably) believe that the US fundamentally changed post-9/11 (preemptive war, coercive interrogations, indefinite detentions, warrantless surveillance, etc.)"
SG, while I agree with your general point about the existential threat, I have to ask: are you saying we haven't done these things in the past?
Tim McVeigh-style racist scumwranglers ... are probably in Iraq or Afghanistan right now.
That's an appallingly nasty, thoughtless, and gratuitous insult towards men and women putting their lives on the line.
The only widespread demonstrations of racism I've seen this year have been by Democrats, towards Democrats, during the Primaries. These now being over, all concerned are drinking the Kumbayah Kool-aid and pretending the whole thing never happened.
Sort of like you are...regarding 9/11.
SG, while I agree with your general point about the existential threat, I have to ask: are you saying we haven't done these things in the past?
No, I'm not saying that the current actions are unprecedented - in a time of war. Declaring war (and I consider the AUMF to be a declaration of war) authorizes the executive to do all sorts of things that would be (and should be) unthinkable in peacetime. Bush's use of that wartime authority seems well within historical precedent.
The thing that is somewhat unique about the current situation is the nature of the enemy. There isn't going to be a formal surrender or anything of the like, so what's the catalyst for revoking that authority?
I never would have guessed on 9/12 that there would be no more significant attacks on US civilian targets through 2008. I supported war in 2001, but at some point we should consider rescinding war authority. I don't discount the possibility that it is the war footing that has kept the country free from attack, but perpetual war is not healthy for the country. Even if this President hasn't abused that authority (and I don't believe he has), there's no guarantees on the next one.
Excellent points, SG. I agree completely.
How many of us are you willing to sacrifice? Once that number is exceeded, then what? How many politicians are going to run on a platform of "we can lose one city and still be OK?"
That "provide for the common defense" business is there for a reason. Absent purpose, this is just an address, not a nation.
"The average middle- or upper-middle class suburban white man, in other words a member of the predominate demographic group on many airline fights, simply cannot conceieve of slamming his fist into another man's face no matter what the circumstances." Peter
TR: Oh I think they would. I know the mantra of "liberal schools have made us soft" is popular, but I really doubt thousands of years of evolution can be undone by frozen yogurt and sensitivity classes.
I don't live in the suburbs, but I really doubt all the men there live like Jains and no violence is ever committed. Judging by what exposure I've had to suburban men on some level they're as crude and capable of violence as anyone else.
On the main matter our Muslim population is indeed more moderate and content than those in Europe. Still going by the Pew Survey there could be up to 120,000 Muslims in America that think suicide bombing can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam. Also Al-Qaeda, as well as other terrorist groups, I think desire converts. They have good reason to want people who don't "look Arab", or Pakistani, I think. I'd agree the threat is lower than in Europe, but I think it's a bit higher than you might be estimating.
On domestic terrorism there's still the threat of engineers and chemistry majors. Many terrorist leaders came from those two fields and had no military experience. A radical or reactionary with engineering know-how could potentially build bombs even if he, it most likely would be a "he", has no military experience. Likewise a chemist could potentially do poison.
You quickly stand some number of poor slobs in front of firing squads . . .
thus inviting those who favor the "criminal" model of fighting/deterring terrorism to conclude that since justice has already been visited upon those actually involved in the attack, no retaliation against the country of origin as such could be justified.
Good thought, OB.
Thanks, PJ.
I guessed I missed a promising career as a criminal. Or maybe, more sanguinely, as a pulp fiction novelist.
Peter, I’d like to point out that on September 11th, a random airplane’s passengers not only managed to conceive the idea, but executed it as well. Now that the rest of us have seen the example, I’m certain that the next time some group attempts something like this, they'll have a fight on their hands.
Do you have any evidence to support your idea? “Teachers punish fighting” doesn’t count. I’d like an example of people refusing to fight post 9-11. (The reason for not fighting before was that it was the rational advice of the security folks to not draw attention to yourself and let negotiations on the ground take their course, after which you’d likely go free.)
Bit of a non sequitur, I know, but I'm ready to fight every time I get on an airplane now. I used to count seatbacks to the nearest exits (in the event of a cabin filled with smoke) and inform the people behind me or in front of me that my baby was going to be handed off to them in the event of a crash (seriously, I did - what a geek!); now I also inventory my purse and carryon for things I can throw and make sure said carryon is both in reach and not so firmly stuffed under the seat that I can't whip it out in a moment.
I've always said that a bounty on hijackers would be much more cost-effective than the TSA.
We'll do it anyway. It would be nice to get a reward to go with the 15 minutes of fame.
Boston Logan airport security did not fail. Our rules of engagement were wrong. Now we know.
“I very much doubt that Al Qaeda or its brethren will manage to achieve anything as big as 9/11 again in the foreseeable future. Not because Homeland Security is protecting us, but because anyone who tries to hijack a plane will face a mob of passengers who believe they are already dead.”
First of all, please pardon me if my repetition bores you.
It is likely that 9/11 was a means to an end. The end was probably the takeover of Saudi Arabia(akin to the Libyan and Iranian cases) The folks who managed The Al Qaeda Project probably set their eyes on a goal that was more realistic, and a goal that was FAR more significant(to them,) than a fist-fight with the United States.
Taking on Amerikkka was the sales pitch (in our eyes.) Taking control of the homeland of Mecca and Medina was the practical objective. Such is the nature of gamesmanship.
I can only GUESS that various US administration decisions, made within mere hours of the key 9/11 events, imply that just such a threat was recognized. Various events around the world even many months later let us surmise who the Saudis believe were part of "the plot."
Has a fiction or nonfiction book been published, as yet, based upon this perspective?