Thursday, July 07, 2005

The technology of death vs. life

I was watching a feature on CNN today that mentioned that terrorist bombers make a special effort to have their explosives go off in an enclosed space because it maximizes the carnage. Thus, today's London subway bombers may have timed their bombs to detonate not only on the subway, but also while the trains were in a tunnel.

The report described some studies from Israel, a country which has experienced more of these terrorist events than anyone else (with Iraq no doubt taking a close second). Apparently, the Israelis have found that one of the advantages of having security guards posted at the entrance to nearly every public place is that bombers who are spotted by guards are often forced to set off their explosives prematurely, in an open rather than a closed area. In this way the guards often sacrifice their own lives to prevent more people from dying.

That's certainly heroic under any definition of the word. I am amazed at how many people are willing to take on such a task. As much as the existence of suicide bombers depresses me and makes me wonder about the future of humanity, the presence of guards--as well as those volunteering for police duty in Iraq--reassures me.

In the first few months after 9/11, and during the later escalation of bombings in Israel as the intifada heated up, as well as the Madrid bombings, I often wondered what a nation can do to deal with such awful possibilities. In this country, we've been remiss about the need to have more checkpoints and guards, because we are loathe to surrender our freedom. In addition, over the nearly four years since 9/11, we've been lulled into what may be a false sense of security by the relative calm here.

I've heard the argument that security guards won't do much anyway, because then the bombers will just seek out different targets and use other methods, such as blowing themselves up on a city street. And while that is no doubt true, today's CNN piece reminded me that the presence of guards would still be likely to make it more difficult for bombers to kill the maximum number of people possible.

War and violence have historically been limited by technology, and as technology advances, the opportunities to kill advance. This has always been true, and defenses against weapons have always lagged behind the invention of the weaponry itself. For example, suicide bombings on a subway would not have been possible but for the invention of lightweight explosives--in the olden days, the sheer volume of explosives necessary would have made it impossible to carry enough on one's person to do widespread damage.

We are still scrambling to figure out the proper response. I doubt it will be a single technology, and it won't happen overnight. History tells us that human ingenuity coupled with human rage dictates that new technologies of destruction will be developed and used, and that we will always be scrambling to defend ourselves against them. So far, the forces of humanity and preservation have prevailed, but it hasn't been easy, and the death toll has been high, particularly in the 20th century. So far, the 21st seems to be continuing the trend.

20 Comments:

At 4:11 PM, July 07, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ho, as Jake Barnes said in The Sun Also Rises, "Isn't it pretty to think so?"

 
At 4:25 PM, July 07, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately we cannot be an open society and perfectly safe concurrently.

After 9/11 I spent a week looking at the small city I live in. I tried to look at it as a terrorist might. What target might I strike that would inflict maximum damage at minimal cost. Very scary stuff! There is an almost unlimited number of available targets. And there is no real way of protecting many of them without destroying our freedoms and/or crippling our economy.

 
At 4:51 PM, July 07, 2005, Blogger goesh said...

Ho hum, Ho hum, I'm glad I can see the author of posts so I don't have to read them - I hope Ho extends me the same courtesy.

Until the civilized world goes from a remedial to an eradication mode, I personally don't think much is going to change. We insist on trying to drag these terrorists into the fold of civilization. They insist on living in the stone age of sharia law and dragging us along with them. Why don't we just sort of drop them and all that goes along with 'carrying' such folks? It is sort of like having Typhoid Mary in the house and asking her to sit on the end of the couch rather than in the middle of the couch, wisffully thinking that no one will be contaminated then. Well, it is time to shoot typhoid Mary in the head and drag her carcass out of the house.

 
At 8:19 PM, July 07, 2005, Blogger Dreamer said...

Man, is there any way to block reading certain users? I'm with Goesh, but I can't help reading Hochi, it's like trying not to look at a train wreck.

I think I will just say this (and then try my best to avert my eyes): You are so overwhelmingly wrong that it hurts. Your philosophy mirrors that of the French, or the majority of Europe in the years prior to WWII. You would prefer to appease evil instead of confront it. You are comfortable blaming the brave and championing the cowardly (and, yes, blowing up civilians on busses and subways is a cowardly act.

Also consider this before you invite Osama to your birthday party: The Americans are fighting islamofascism and trying to protect civilians from harm. The terrorists are fighting democracy/democracies and deliberately murdering civilians. How can it be any more plain which side is working for peace and which is working for fear?

...
Mike

 
At 8:46 PM, July 07, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ho Chi Minh: What are we going to do, break their will? Forget it. We have to get out.

It's not likely this person, whoever he/she is, ever had much of a will in the first place, and the childish reference to a golden rule-ed world -- as though there never were such things as nazis, fascists, or just plain murderous thugs -- indicates a degree of twee silliness in the face of horror that verges on a kind of psychosis. Sorry, neo-neo, but in this case, and in this context, I just don't find it even pretty to think so.

Much more significant, though, is how well it encapsulates the detachment from the real world of significant portions of the left these days -- their response to those who murder random civilians in order precisely to break the will of their enemy is a quick and craven tacit admission that their own will is broken and "We have to get out".

 
At 9:58 PM, July 07, 2005, Blogger Pancho said...

Ho Chi, for all his principled talk, somehow doesn't realize that the these people would just as soon kill him too. Maybe first.

 
At 10:12 PM, July 07, 2005, Blogger TmjUtah said...

My comment on the thread before this applies here, too.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. It gets all the ideas into the arena, and then the bad ones end up on the sand.

Keep burning the old flag there, Ho. Let people know exactly where you stand.

 
At 10:14 PM, July 07, 2005, Blogger Dr. Sanity said...

Perhaps Ho can comment on our "invasion" of Bosnia and all the muslims the US targeted there. That was of course not too long before 9/11. Perhaps if we had let the genocide there take place?

Oh, and Ho--I am eagerly awaiting the end to world hunger now that we've had that concert. How long do you think it will take?

 
At 10:46 PM, July 07, 2005, Blogger neuroconservative said...

From the archives of the Belmont Club:

The Left will wake up one day, on the morning it is led down a dark corridor to a cell floored with rubber mats, sloping curiously down to a corner where a single drain waits to carry fluid away. The walls will be bare but for a banner with the words 'Allah is Great' opposite a video camera whose tripod legs are protected with a drop cloth. On a table will be a single knife. And then they will know. Then they will see.

 
At 1:01 AM, July 08, 2005, Blogger gatorbait said...

The technique iscalled "tamping" it is nothing at all new. Explosions look for the path of least resistance, so, when tamped, the explosion goes in search of the path. It tends to cause frightful damage or remove the tree stump, depending on why the device is set off.

Ho Chi Minh, no new idea, same tired slogans and excuses. A waste of DNA.

 
At 6:12 AM, July 08, 2005, Blogger goesh said...

I came across an interesting article from an obscure medical journal. It purports that the ILA crowd, I Loathe America, suffers from more flatulence and sexual impotence than other folks. I'm digging around now trying to find it so you all can reference it.

 
At 7:51 AM, July 08, 2005, Blogger goesh said...

I remain steadfast in my vow not to read Ho hum's ILA (I Loathe America) commentary! It is fast becoming a sacred mission. I have not had a sacred mission recently, not since I swore off buttermilk. If someone would be so kind as to tell Ho hum that I regard ILA blather as not only free speech but tacit endorsement of the jihadis, I would be most appreciative. If he has any civility about him, he is not reading me either. Any intermediary so kind may well find a gift certificate to the nearest ice cream parlor in their mailbox.
Please remind Ho hum that we all know that ILA folk, like the jihadis, desperately require an audience. The worse thing that can be done to a masochist is to not whip him/her. You get my drift here I'm sure.

 
At 8:37 AM, July 08, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ho

Have you ever considered Islamic totaliarian rule to be the cause of radical Islamic Jihadism?

Or is this idea far beyond Chomsky's comprenhension.

That said, do you really expect me to be fair to those who can bury a women in a hole in the ground up to her neck then stone her to death for having humiliated Allah by being raped? Please explain why you consider such acts as dignified or fair. And no, as a women I would not like to be treated in that way at all!

I do not believe that Islamic women wished to be treated as such either but everytime an Islamic female speaks on behalf of human rights, dignity and fair treatment in her own Islamic male-dominated society she is executed.

Executing you for practicing free speech is a law you have the luxury of never having to abide by because of those who are willing to fight and stand against totalitarian rule, like the all-volunteer US Military, to preserve your right to be treated fairly and with dignity.

 
At 10:34 AM, July 08, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ho presents an alternate point of view. If a majority of Americans adopted Ho's current point of view - Ho would present an alternate point of view. The internet has a term for it: troll.

 
At 11:48 AM, July 08, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ho: Come near my house, kill my family or pay others to do it, like the US government does in the Middle East, and you'll see what I'm made off mother-fucker.

Sorry, Ho, but I think we can see what you're made of already -- the Islamo-fascists have killed many people's families, and your response is to urge more "understanding". Two things:
1. Understanding is a good thing, and no doubt we should have more of it -- but those who invoke "understanding" as an alternative to forceful action in the face of murderous violence are usually just trying to find a cover for their own fear and terror;
2. The US, and the West in general -- like all states and all societies on earth and throughout history -- have made mistakes. But there are disputes over what constitutes such mistakes. There are various ways of arguing the point, and various actions that can be taken in response -- but killing as many men, women and children as you possibly can is not one of them. Some people, it's true, find such an "argument" compelling -- you may be one, and a number of voters in Spain a while back were others. Fortunately, more people find it repulsive enough that it simply obliterates any initiating issue -- and they resolve to defeat the killers, as the civilized world resolved to defeat fascism two generations ago. (By the way, OBL, I believe, would differ with you over what "started" this dispute -- for him it was the "loss" of Andalusia some five centuries ago.)

 
At 2:33 PM, July 08, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fathoming who suicide bombers are, what motivates them, and what can stop them has become particularly urgent now that such attacks in Iraq have reached unprecedented levels, with more than 200 this year. That has prompted concern that a generation of terrorists is learning skills it can bring to the U.S. and Europe. Science and experience show that last-minute defense is the wrong way to play this lethal game."

More left-wing appeasement drivel? Maybe, but it's from today's Wall Street Journal, the Science Journal column "Why Just Detecting Hidden Explosives May Not Cut Deaths", page B1. You might want to look it up, it says that detonating bombs in open areas might actually do more damage than an enclosed area.

"New research suggests that even perfect detection may not substantially lower the death toll from bombs set off in urban areas. And in some cases, terrorism experts now recognize a counterintuitive possibility: Warnings may lead to more fatalities."

 
At 9:58 PM, July 08, 2005, Blogger goesh said...

Will my intermediary please apprise Ho hum that I have received 857 emails promising not to read his ILA (I loathe america) tirades? I wonder if my sacred vow not to read Ho hum is affecting people in a mystical, new-age sort of way? Is there such a thing as a conservative swami of sorts? OOOMM! I may well be exaggerating my self importance again, but I believe if I persist with my sacred vow, I may be able to start doing some exorcisms to drive demons from suffering Liberals like Ho hum. Probably some laxatives might do these folks more good than any of my incantations and chanting. Remember the theatre of the absurd? We need to start employing that with some of the ILA folks and placators of terrorists. We could do a skit on human shields rushing into the ranks of American troops once saddams thugs abadoned them and oppressed Iraqis began to close in on them......?? Ohhh, that would be fun to portray. We could develop a human shield manual: 1.) When Iraqis are being put through a plastic shredder by saddam hussein's thugs, stay at your post to demonstrate your resolve. It will be necessary to yell to grieving family members that you are doing this for them - their high pitched screams of grief will be piercing, but it is imperative that they hear you are there to protect them. If we do a skit on this, I get to portray Ho hum - I must insist on this!

 
At 10:48 PM, July 08, 2005, Blogger Dreamer said...

And I swore I wouldn’t look.

Here's what I perceive as the core of Ho's argument: America deserves what it is getting because of misdeeds committed in the past. Ho's solution is to withdraw our participation in that region. Ho's logic goes: if we just leave them alone they will leave us alone and Americans are free to live in peace.

First, an admittal: The United States has not behaved with perfect moral clarity over the last 60 years. In an effort to stop the spread of communism (and in so doing, protect American citizens) we took positions of foreign policy that undoubtedly supported the brutal reign of dictators and helped to destabilize southwest asia. As Condi said recently at the American University in Cairo: these positions were wrong.

That being said, this is why I can't buy your solution:

1) Women deserve the right of representation. They deserve protection from gang rape. They deserve to receive equal treatment under law. Radical Islam is the result of your exit strategy and the leaders that would fill the resulting power vacuum would rather die than see this suffrage extended.

2) If we leave the ME to its own devices then the leaders that emerge (such as Hussein) will continue to repress, imprison, gas, and mass-execute minority groups. This includes Kurds. This includes Christians. This includes Women. In Iraq this included Shi'ites. A multicultural democracy with equal protection under law for minorities is the solution. While not perfect, in contains the seeds for something better.

3) Ultimately, I don't want my freedom at the expense of others. I don’t think that leaving this region alone is the most moral solution to our problem. On a very personal level, if I see injustice done to my neighbor I do not turn a blind eye for "their sake." I think this would apply even if I had acted to their detriment in the past. (In fact, the impulse would be greater for my guilt)

Look, we aren’t perfect, but the Iraqis are better-off with the disposal of Saddam Hussein. Afhanis are better off without the oppressive Taliban. Egyptians will be better off with the end of their perpetual state of emergency and the existence of free elections. Africans (in fact, everyone) is better off without Khadafi in possession of WMD’s . Saudis would be better off with corrupt monarchy, I could go on…

Ultimately, I think this is a question of morality. It is a question of justice. I think it is in our national character to promote the freedom and dignity of the world's people and I think we are on the right path.

 
At 7:44 AM, July 09, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How well said, Michael Marden. Thanks.

 
At 2:21 PM, July 11, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A not so minor point: explosives suitable for suicide bombings have existed since the invention of dynamite (mid 1800s). Modern military explosives are engineered for better handling properties (safety, storability), not for more explosive yield.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Powered by Blogger