Barcelona Terror Attack.

[Flagg]

Maybe, but if you are a terrorist watching this the lesson is that it may not be worth it to spend the time and logistics to create a bomb, exposing you to all the risks of working with bombs and the possibility of exposure because people are looking at that, when you can just rent some cars and ram a crowd.

Imagine if all the people involved in this plot so far, just to produce one bomb, had all just done exactly what happened at Barcelona simultaneously around Spain. The risk/reward between the tactics is weighted pretty heavily in the favor of just ramming people with cars. Especially since the idea of being murdered by a common object heightens the terror aspect. There is really no place for explosives in everyday life, but can you really ever effectively screen for non-modified vehicles for every possible target when every modern society is heavily reliant on and built around cars to a great degree?

Yeah, but it's surprisingly easy to prevent vehicle ramming attacks. Any place that typically is a gathering place for pedestrians can easily be protected cheaply by placement of retractable barricades. Buildings across the US are already largely protected by permanent ones. Driving into a crowded apartment building's lobby with a vehicle doused in gasoline would only happen once and then barriers would be guarding them, too. Though I would urge proactive placement.

But terrorists tend to target landmarks and other "high value targets". It never seems to occur to them that attacking a dozen Wal-Marts simultaneously across the country would do more net harm to the American psyche and economy than blowing up an embassy.

[Gandalf]

But terrorists tend to target landmarks and other "high value targets". It never seems to occur to them that attacking a dozen Wal-Marts simultaneously across the country would do more net harm to the American psyche and economy than blowing up an embassy.

I always assumed it was an ego thing, where nobody wants to be the guy that drove into the Somethingville Wal-Mart, but some place with more standing.

Wars are won and lost on television, and internationally recognisable areas make for a better coverage.

[Flagg]

But terrorists tend to target landmarks and other "high value targets". It never seems to occur to them that attacking a dozen Wal-Marts simultaneously across the country would do more net harm to the American psyche and economy than blowing up an embassy.

I always assumed it was an ego thing, where nobody wants to be the guy that drove into the Somethingville Wal-Mart, but some place with more standing.

Wars are won and lost on television, and internationally recognisable areas make for a better coverage.

Yeah, but your average American has never been to the WTC or Pentagon and we can console ourselves with hero fantasies while eyeing everyone darker than an albino vampire that walks onto an airplane. But you make them think them and their brats might get blown up on the weekly Wal-Mart run? Christ, they'll have liquid shit running down their legs if a fucking balloon pops while they're loading a crate of Kraft Mac n' Cheese in their cart.

You're right of course. Bin Laden must have read too many Batman comic books between getting raped by the clergy as a kid because he was doing crazy super villain shit.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, I think the opposite of what you're predicting might happen, Flagg.

When people have to accept danger as part of their daily lives, they get immunized against it. People in war-torn countries often just carry on their trades and try to keep safe. Life went on during the London Blitz, and to a somewhat lesser extend during the much heavier aerial bombing of Axis cities later in World War Two. And if people can carry on their lives in cities that are literally being carpet-bombed every fucking night.

People crap their metaphorical pants over terrorist attacks precisely because they know the terrorists are hitting "us," but don't get a chance to come to terms with the actual danger of being attacked. There's no stimulus that forces us to ask ourselves "wait, how likely is this to hurt us, really," realize we're less likely to be killed by terrorists than by lightning strikes, and get on with our lives.

But people still have to go to the grocery store whether terrorists attack grocery stores or not. They can't just sit around and starve to death. So within two or three weeks, everyone would be going back to the store, and everyone would realize "wow, everyone went back to the store and no one got murdered by terrorists." And it would tend to undermine the institution of 'security theater,' because unlike air travel, going to the store is so routine that people are more likely to resist being constantly harassed every time they do it, if there's no steady stream of attacks being prevented.

I don't have much incentive to push back against the TSA if I only ever board a plane every few years. If the Shopping Security Administration tries to take a terahertz scan of me every time I go to Target, I have incentive to push back.

[Flagg]

Oh I'm not saying it would work long-term. It would cause a huge shock to the system, though. But yeah, we would become inoculated. That's why I said earlier, we all need to learn to accept the fact that we are never truly safe from terrorism. When we do, it will no longer work.

[ray245]

Actually, I think the opposite of what you're predicting might happen, Flagg.

When people have to accept danger as part of their daily lives, they get immunized against it. People in war-torn countries often just carry on their trades and try to keep safe. Life went on during the London Blitz, and to a somewhat lesser extend during the much heavier aerial bombing of Axis cities later in World War Two. And if people can carry on their lives in cities that are literally being carpet-bombed every fucking night.

People crap their metaphorical pants over terrorist attacks precisely because they know the terrorists are hitting "us," but don't get a chance to come to terms with the actual danger of being attacked. There's no stimulus that forces us to ask ourselves "wait, how likely is this to hurt us, really," realize we're less likely to be killed by terrorists than by lightning strikes, and get on with our lives.

But people still have to go to the grocery store whether terrorists attack grocery stores or not. They can't just sit around and starve to death. So within two or three weeks, everyone would be going back to the store, and everyone would realize "wow, everyone went back to the store and no one got murdered by terrorists." And it would tend to undermine the institution of 'security theater,' because unlike air travel, going to the store is so routine that people are more likely to resist being constantly harassed every time they do it, if there's no steady stream of attacks being prevented.

I don't have much incentive to push back against the TSA if I only ever board a plane every few years. If the Shopping Security Administration tries to take a terahertz scan of me every time I go to Target, I have incentive to push back.

They are many people who are very willing to trade privacy for the sake of security (whether it works is another debate, it's about the perception of feeling safe that's the key). Terrorism is scary for many people because it makes them fearful of the people that stand right beside them when they want to live a stress-free life.

I think the people who are unwilling to trade privacy away are in a minority.

[CetaMan]

There is the questionable goal of balancing privacy and security. London for example has cameras literally everywhere, so they have general tracking on the streets. However it can be argued they have less cyber stuff then the US.

[Simon_Jester]

Oh I'm not saying it would work long-term. It would cause a huge shock to the system, though. But yeah, we would become inoculated. That's why I said earlier, we all need to learn to accept the fact that we are never truly safe from terrorism. When we do, it will no longer work.

Well, my argument is that this acceptance is far more likely to result from terrorists attacking "normal" sites and things, as opposed to attacking "special" things like political demonstrations and national landmarks.

They are many people who are very willing to trade privacy for the sake of security (whether it works is another debate, it's about the perception of feeling safe that's the key). Terrorism is scary for many people because it makes them fearful of the people that stand right beside them when they want to live a stress-free life.

I think the people who are unwilling to trade privacy away are in a minority.

You're saying something very common, and missing something significant about my argument.

Look at the underlined statement. People "want to live a stress-free life." That's important.

If you create a situation where obtrusive security makes people feel oppressed in their daily routines, you will get a kind of pushback that does NOT happen when the security is placed on national landmarks, or on an activity most people engage in only rarely. This is not because people are hesitating to trade away privacy for security out of some principled defense of their rights. It is simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced in exchange for zero benefit to themselves.

Most people can ignore a surprising amount of oppression that only affects minorities of which they are not a member, or unlucky people who happen to share a name with someone on a list, or that only affects them once a year or so. They will not necessarily ignore all forms of oppression and "security theater," including the ones that impact everyone's routine activities.

[ray245]

Well, my argument is that this acceptance is far more likely to result from terrorists attacking "normal" sites and things, as opposed to attacking "special" things like political demonstrations and national landmarks.

Take a look at Iraq or Afghanistan. Has the people there "accepted" terrorist attacks as part of their daily lives?

You're saying something very common, and missing something significant about my argument.

Look at the underlined statement. People "want to live a stress-free life." That's important.

If you create a situation where obtrusive security makes people feel oppressed in their daily routines, you will get a kind of pushback that does NOT happen when the security is placed on national landmarks, or on an activity most people engage in only rarely. This is not because people are hesitating to trade away privacy for security out of some principled defense of their rights. It is simply because they don't want to be inconvenienced in exchange for zero benefit to themselves.

Most people can ignore a surprising amount of oppression that only affects minorities of which they are not a member, or unlucky people who happen to share a name with someone on a list, or that only affects them once a year or so. They will not necessarily ignore all forms of oppression and "security theater," including the ones that impact everyone's routine activities.

Don't underestimate what people are willing to trade for security. Travel used to be much easier in the past, but people have accepted more regulations and safety measures into order to make them feel safe.

Saying there will be pushback is like saying every policy will result in a protest of some sort. How big are the push-backs? How many people will be upset enough to do something about it? Or will people simply grumble about new security measures on Facebook and etc, while accepting those new measures?

[Simon_Jester]

Well, my argument is that this acceptance is far more likely to result from terrorists attacking "normal" sites and things, as opposed to attacking "special" things like political demonstrations and national landmarks.

Take a look at Iraq or Afghanistan. Has the people there "accepted" terrorist attacks as part of their daily lives?

That's a false analogy. The context of the discussion was the vastly lower frequency of attacks in Western countries.

Don't underestimate what people are willing to trade for security. Travel used to be much easier in the past, but people have accepted more regulations and safety measures into order to make them feel safe.

Saying there will be pushback is like saying every policy will result in a protest of some sort. How big are the push-backs? How many people will be upset enough to do something about it? Or will people simply grumble about new security measures on Facebook and etc, while accepting those new measures?

The pushbacks will be a lot stronger in the context of people being inconvenienced daily than in the context of people being inconvenienced yearly.

[ray245]

That's a false analogy. The context of the discussion was the vastly lower frequency of attacks in Western countries.

Except we know that the frequency of attacks isn't something that will remain the same. There are times where the frequency is higher and times when it is lower.

The pushbacks will be a lot stronger in the context of people being inconvenienced daily than in the context of people being inconvenienced yearly.

Really? We humans have shown an ability to get used to being inconvenienced daily as part of daily lives. Traffic rules, drinking rules and etc have all been imposed on our daily lives as a form of safety.

[Flagg]

Oh I'm not saying it would work long-term. It would cause a huge shock to the system, though. But yeah, we would become inoculated. That's why I said earlier, we all need to learn to accept the fact that we are never truly safe from terrorism. When we do, it will no longer work.

Well, my argument is that this acceptance is far more likely to result from terrorists attacking "normal" sites and things, as opposed to attacking "special" things like political demonstrations and national landmarks.

It really depends on if it's a sustained thing or not. Americans seem to have just thrown up their hands and accepted school and workplace shootings since the people in power have decided nothing of consequence should be done. They still happen, they just aren't huge stories anymore. So if terrorism against shopping centers was a sustained thing for 30 years, yeah.

[Simon_Jester]

Well Flagg, the flip side is that if there's one attack, something is done, and then nothing happens for several years...

You're going to have people complaining about the one-in-a-million times when their nakedcam pictures from Wal-Mart wind up on Instagram. Over and over and over. Even more so than on the airlines because as I've noted, everyone goes to the store while only some people go to the airport, less frequently.

If you think the level of chucklefuckery the TSA has now is a problem, imagine what happens when they need to hire vastly more people to be everywhere at once.

It's not just about whether the terrorist attacks come in at a steady pace. It's that people have much more incentive to learn the lesson "sometimes it's a bad idea to give up liberty for safety" when the liberty they just gave up is "no patdown searches at the supermarket" than when it's "no patdown searches at the airport."

[Flagg]

Well Flagg, the flip side is that if there's one attack, something is done, and then nothing happens for several years...

You're going to have people complaining about the one-in-a-million times when their nakedcam pictures from Wal-Mart wind up on Instagram. Over and over and over. Even more so than on the airlines because as I've noted, everyone goes to the store while only some people go to the airport, less frequently.

If you think the level of chucklefuckery the TSA has now is a problem, imagine what happens when they need to hire vastly more people to be everywhere at once.

It's not just about whether the terrorist attacks come in at a steady pace. It's that people have much more incentive to learn the lesson "sometimes it's a bad idea to give up liberty for safety" when the liberty they just gave up is "no patdown searches at the supermarket" than when it's "no patdown searches at the airport."

Well I'm not saying it's desirable. Like, at all. I'd much rather they keep up doing what they are doing (losing badly) than have more attacks. I just think that a population that already knows it isn't safe from terrorism and views it as the price we pay to be king shit of the world as well as tolerating people and things any terrorist group, foreign and domestic, hates, will make attacks far less effective.