Thread: Liberty or security

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

That will not happen within your lifetime or mine.

Unless someone's government stages the event. And I do mean "stages".

you mean a government like N Korea or Iran ?? yeah I can see it.

Originally Posted by Cicero

I disagree that this it THE threat we need to fear. First, because it requires a degree of technological skill, resources, and coordination that would be hard to hide. Secondly, this is the type of threat that would be easy to preempt, and which would ensure international destruction of these organizations.

Nope. Smart money says that something that can be done by a group of "lone actors" would be much more effective, and harder to detect. Picture this scenario:

Twenty individuals (briefed and sent on their way independently) at twenty of our largest cities use shoulder mounted weapons to bring down aircraft by launching from points along the local landing and take off pattern. They don't know each other, don't know the others exist, use different suppliers for these weapons and they are brought into the country by different means. During this same period, another twenty people (again lone actors, briefed and sent on their way independently) attack buses and subway trains using grenades man portable explosives, and small arms (at the peak of rush hour) in twenty different cities. Thiese events are coupled with bombing attempts and highway sniping affecting roads and bridges (done by twenty different lone actors). With sixty people, whose only connection to each other is a date (or range of dates) to take an action, terrorists could cripple our country. Since they are lone actors, functioning as a "launch it and forget it" kind of human homing missile electronic eavesdropping would be less than certain about catching them all. These are relatively low tech, low risk operations, and the more of them that don't get caught the greater the impact...but even if only one or two of them escape detection and succeed, the effect is multiplied significantly. The more wrinkles you throw in, like having some of them use RPGs to attack responders the worse it gets for us.

These are the most likely attack scenarios, they play to the strengths of the terrorists, and they are almost impossible to prevent because our borders are so porous.

good scenerio and probable.. but I like mine better ... more destruction, especially if a couple were EMPS

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Um... where is a terrorist going to get a nuclear weapon? There's only one place to get one, right? And they're generally pretty expensive....

If I was a terrorist, I wouldn't waste my time with nukes. Not even small dirty bombs.

Biologicals, on the other hand...

Yeah, but it's still a pretty complicated process...and it's a type of attack that is sufficiently scary to all governments that it would result in the obliteration of any group that used them.

We cannot dismiss nukes, biological, or chemical weapons as a threat, but these types of things typically require a state sponsor to be practicable. This significantly increases the probability of detection. Terrorists don't need that kind of weaponry to be effective. They could, for example, create terror by popping the door panels on several SUVs, ining the doors with plasticized PETN or TATP with a layer of ball bearings. Put a couple of full gas cans in the back of the SUV and park at your nearest large shopping mall. Detonate the first vehicle, wait for the first responders to arrive and detonate the next one. Alternatively they could plant IEDs along American highways and remote detonate them at rush hour. Do this in enough locations and you get the effect you want...people afraid to go to work or go to the store. Two or three guys on motorcycles (with pipe bombs) in ten cities can create a major disruption to commerce...light the fuse, toss it and drive away leaving people dead and injured behind them. Gasoline and powdered dish detergent can be used to make a crude form of napalm which you can add to the mix. None of this stuff is hard to get and is the most credible threat precisely for this reason.

Originally Posted by wingrider

good scenerio and probable.. but I like mine better ... more destruction, especially if a couple were EMPS

Oh, it's the kind of thing that is popular as a plot for movies, and for television shows like 24, but the reality is that both missile systems and nuclear payloads are fairly complex systems. They require a great deal of training and maintenance if you want them to work correctly. There is also the consideration that, once terrorists use nukes (or biological agents) the kid gloves come off...worldwide. Too many governments will feel too threatened by this usage. It will vastly expand the pool of enemies these terrorists would have, and pose a serious threat to any nation that harbored them.

If someone gave them a nuke, would they try to use it? Yes they would, and that's why we can't discount nukes as a threat... but it's not the most significant threat or even the most credible.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Oh, it's the kind of thing that is popular as a plot for movies, and for television shows like 24, but the reality is that both missile systems and nuclear payloads are fairly complex systems. They require a great deal of training and maintenance if you want them to work correctly. There is also the consideration that, once terrorists use nukes (or biological agents) the kid gloves come off...worldwide. Too many governments will feel too threatened by this usage. It will vastly expand the pool of enemies these terrorists would have, and pose a serious threat to any nation that harbored them.

If someone gave them a nuke, would they try to use it? Yes they would, and that's why we can't discount nukes as a threat... but it's not the most significant threat or even the most credible.

but is it possible?? and i can think of at least 1 nation that would do it N Korea, thoes people are crazy.. if the past has any bearing on it.

Originally Posted by wingrider

but is it possible?? and i can think of at least 1 nation that would do it N Korea, thoes people are crazy.. if the past has any bearing on it.

An invasion from Mars is possible, but on a scale of likely events it ranks rather low. Terrorists getting nukes is possible, but, it's not the most immediate or credible threat. Putting it into plain English, our foreign DIPLOMATIC policy should discourage countries from giving terrorists nukes...but that doesn't, in any way, translate into a need to use military force against North Korea or Iran at this time.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Benjamin Franklin is credited as once saying "those who would sacrifice liberty for a little safety will inevitably lose both and deserve neither."
The question in this thread speaks to whether you would be free or safe. This is not an attempt to solicit mock heroic declamations of personal freedom. Neither is it an attempt to minimize government's necessary involvement in the creation of an orderly society, through the use of law enforcement to reduce crime. What this thread is, is an attempt to have a grown up conversation about freedom, risk, security, and safety. It's a serious attempt to address the question of the trade-off a society incurs as it moves towards perceived safety.

To start this discussion I will first provide my bona-fides (which you can choose to consider or ignore). In the matter of national security I have about twenty-five years experience. I have a current TS-SCI. I was a founding member of the Department of Homeland Security. I have held a civilian position, equivalent to a lieutenant colonel of Marines, during this period. I have done risk assessments, threat analysis, and have designed countermeasures to reduce or eliminate specific threats.

I would posit to you two things: Freedom is for adults. It requires that each individual be responsible, to some extent, for his own safety and security. This is something the government cannot provide (absolutely) to you. Further to the point, it has no duty to do so., for any specific person.

The second thing I would posit to you is that the way to fight terrorism is not to be terrified. It is necessary to accept some level of risk, because that's the nature of life. Everything we do is based in some assessment of risk. Cross the street or do not cross. Walk through a particular neighborhood or avoid it. Drive or take public transportation. We consider risk in most things we do, yet many accept that the level of "safety" provided by the government (and it's false, but more on that later) is necessary without really understanding how remote the risk of an attack (affecting them) really is. More to the point they fail to understand that many of the steps the government takes really DON'T significantly alter the level of risk.

So my question is this: Freedom or safety? Why?

I am reposting the OP so that we can move onto the next part of the discussion, while keeping it on track. In discussing the question of freedom or safety (liberty or security) we should not be looking, exclusively, at the threat...we should also be looking at other factors. These other factors define whether the "trade off" we are making (liberty sacrificed for security gained) has value. We should be looking at the credibility and probability of a threat without the sensationalism attached to political polemic. We should be looking at the efficiency and efficacy of the strategies we use to address risk, and whether other strategies might yield a better result.

As a thesis statement, for this part of the discussion, I would observe that the governmennt, imho, has a nasty habit of using a crisis to justify actions it has ALWAYS wanted to do (including spending money, launching wars, and passing laws). I would further stipulate that there is no, universal, correspondence, between the actions the government takes (and the money it spends) and threat reduction. The average person is no more secure, or safe, today than they were on 9/10/2001 or 04/18/1995. Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Cicero

I am reposting the OP so that we can move onto the next part of the discussion, while keeping it on track. In discussing the question of freedom or safety (liberty or security) we should not be looking, exclusively, at the threat...we should also be looking at other factors. These other factors define whether the "trade off" we are making (liberty sacrificed for security gained) has value. We should be looking at the credibility and probability of a threat without the sensationalism attached to political polemic. We should be looking at the efficiency and efficacy of the strategies we use to address risk, and whether other strategies might yield a better result.

As a thesis statement, for this part of the discussion, I would observe that the governmennt, imho, has a nasty habit of using a crisis to justify actions it has ALWAYS wanted to do (including spending money, launching wars, and passing laws). I would further stipulate that there is no, universal, correspondence, between the actions the government takes (and the money it spends) and threat reduction. The average person is no more secure, or safe, today than they were on 9/10/2001 or 04/18/1995. Your thoughts?

I complety agree .. we have nothing to fear but the machinations of our own government..