$15,000 for a single attack versus $100,000,000,000 per year (or thereabouts) to defend against it. That does not look like a sustainable model to me. posted by forforf at 10:03 AM on March 9, 2006
The decreasing price and decentralized nature of terrorism mean a couple of bad things, but the one I fear most is that an American "War On Terror" will never end, never wind down, never succeed, and never stop robbing US Citizens blind. It's the ultimate excuse to get away with whatever you want, and it's never going to go away. posted by dougunderscorenelso at 10:18 AM on March 9, 2006
Interesting stuff russilwvong. Way back in the 80's, when terrorrism took the form of bombs in trashcans and hijacker stand-offs, the conventional wisdom was that sure, it's cheap to buy some handguns and get some crazies together, but that's overlooking the structural necessities--to speak the appropriate language(s), have passports, fit in in terms of looks. The WINEP piece is a nice rebuttal, but it's hard to deny that potential terror cells are smart enough to adapt to both their mistakes and successes, much faster than any governmental agency ever could. posted by bardic at 10:24 AM on March 9, 2006
And haven't we driven that in some way? We closed off many of the traditional networks of funding, so they had to go smaller and off-the-radar, no? We made it easier for them, actually. posted by amberglow at 10:33 AM on March 9, 2006
Saudi Arabia is doing just fine, last time I checked. posted by bardic at 10:34 AM on March 9, 2006
See, naysayers? Outsourcing can work. posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:06 AM on March 9, 2006
The real danger is the misappropriation of the word "terror" as a synonym for "terrorism". posted by signal at 11:58 AM on March 9, 2006
« Older Nighthaunts... | "STRANGER: 'Do you mind m... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by forforf at 10:03 AM on March 9, 2006