What we should be afraid of next.

[HardWarrior]

The next fake threat

"However, EMP itself is not science fiction. A congressionally-mandated commission last summer went public with their unclassified executive summary that envisions terrorists detonating a nuclear warhead above the continental United States, unleashing an EMP of catastrophic proportions and thrusting our 21st century information society into darkness. Their report's main recommendation is to spend anywhere from $20-200 billion in the next twenty years to "harden" America's critical infrastructure (e.g. the power industry, telecommunications) from EMP."

I, like some of you, have wondered how much influence defense OEMs are having on the way we view the rest of the world and ourselves. This article highlights the incestuous relationship that has developed between "think tanks", which have become one of the main sources of intellectual fodder for both national and international policy, and powerful defense contractors who profit handily from both the expenditure and ongoing development of high-tech weapon systems.

What I find most interesting about this piece is that it offers detailed insights into how threats are seemingly created to justify new corporate revenue streams.

 

[Bumrush99]

Well, 5 years ago we would have laughed if private companies said that airplanes needed to have secure cabins and that airports needed massive security projects to protect US citizens.

Hindsight is 20/20, the best security policy is to think ahead. It may seem unreal today, but may become a reality down the line. Companies spend millions of dollars protecting their network infastructure and hackers still find a way to get in. We have to treat the terrorist threat in the same way, none of us know what they are capable of doing, especially with all the illegal cash that is being funneled through some of these organizations.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Yes because the idea of a nuke going off on mainland US is something that we don?t need to worry about (because apparently the government feels they can't stop terrorists sneaking one in), the EMP however is.

 

[ECUHITMAN]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Well, 5 years ago we would have laughed if private companies said that airplanes needed to have secure cabins and that airports needed massive security projects to protect US citizens.

Actually, NO. I thought the doors were already secure. I did not realize that all they had was a little latch holding it closed. If I had, I would have been behind a program securing the door. I mean my god, (if anyone saw Flight 93 documentary on discovery), they were sent a message saying to prepare for possible cabin intrusions, and the pilots apparently did not do anything (or what they did was not good enough).

 

[CaptnKirk]

Most everything military since the 70's is EMP hardened, very likeley little threat to much else, even civilian stuff.
Besides - it's NOT a War of the Worlds Sci-Fi thriller, and if it did happen we could always have Tom Cruise exorcise it with a couch jumping ritual.

 

[tommywishbone]

Since the last attack (ships in port) was made using 1930's Katuskya Rockets, I think maybe rotting pig carcasses delievered via catapult may be a concern.

 

[YoshiSato]

I don't think a terrorist EMP attack via a nuclear device is very practical. Why?
Terrorist(The Bin Laden Types) want to kill as many people as they can, they do not care so much about stargitic targest, just high death tolls.

If they had the means to launch this type of an attack they would take the aeroplane and fly it into a major city(Lets say LA) and go boom. LA is gone, millions dead and yes their will be a EMP but that's only a secondary effect.

There are much simpler means of launching a EMP attack, the parts would cost less then 500 bucks(not includeing the C4 but that's easy enough to come by)

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato
Terrorist(The Bin Laden Types) want to kill as many people as they can, they do not care so much about stargitic targest, just high death tolls.

This wasn't their original plan, just plan B (or plan C, or D, etc.). It is the result of their original plans failing. Attacking the US was a result of their original plans of taking over their own governments failing. This goes back to Kutb (sic?) and his days in Egypt, followed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, and then him with bin laden.

 

[digiram]

5 years later, I'm still laughing at the story that we were fed about the hijackers taking over commercial aircrafts with box cutters????? Apparently, it's the box cutters that we must fear.

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: YoshiSato
Terrorist(The Bin Laden Types) want to kill as many people as they can, they do not care so much about stargitic targest, just high death tolls.

This wasn't their original plan, just plan B (or plan C, or D, etc.). It is the result of their original plans failing. Attacking the US was a result of their original plans of taking over their own governments failing. This goes back to Kutb (sic?) and his days in Egypt, followed by Ayman al-Zawahiri, and then him with bin laden.

Still a Direct EMP attack via nuclear device is unlikely because if they have the nuke they and the means to dentonate it in the upper atmosphere they have the means to kill many many people.

Also to hardening electronics is not practicle, it is very expensive.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: digiram
5 years later, I'm still laughing at the story that we were fed about the hijackers taking over commercial aircrafts with box cutters????? Apparently, it's the box cutters that we must fear.

Hey rocket ranger. How about 5 of my buddies meet you somewhere. We will all have straight razors and you'll have nothing but your BS. How do you think you'll do?

 

[YoshiSato]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: digiram
5 years later, I'm still laughing at the story that we were fed about the hijackers taking over commercial aircrafts with box cutters????? Apparently, it's the box cutters that we must fear.

Hey rocket ranger. How about 5 of my buddies meet you somewhere. We will all have straight razors and you'll have nothing but your BS. How do you think you'll do?

Flight 11 seemed to get the job done

Oh wait the F16s shot it down.

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: YoshiSato

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: digiram
5 years later, I'm still laughing at the story that we were fed about the hijackers taking over commercial aircrafts with box cutters????? Apparently, it's the box cutters that we must fear.

Hey rocket ranger. How about 5 of my buddies meet you somewhere. We will all have straight razors and you'll have nothing but your BS. How do you think you'll do?

Flight 11 seemed to get the job done

Oh wait the F16s shot it down.

Where the hell do you people come from?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: digiram
5 years later, I'm still laughing at the story that we were fed about the hijackers taking over commercial aircrafts with box cutters????? Apparently, it's the box cutters that we must fear.

Hey rocket ranger. How about 5 of my buddies meet you somewhere. We will all have straight razors and you'll have nothing but your BS. How do you think you'll do?

Oooh...internet tough guys, how fun for all of us.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Well, 5 years ago we would have laughed if private companies said that airplanes needed to have secure cabins and that airports needed massive security projects to protect US citizens.

Hindsight is 20/20, the best security policy is to think ahead. It may seem unreal today, but may become a reality down the line. Companies spend millions of dollars protecting their network infastructure and hackers still find a way to get in. We have to treat the terrorist threat in the same way, none of us know what they are capable of doing, especially with all the illegal cash that is being funneled through some of these organizations.

There is nothing wrong with trying to think ahead to the next attack, it is poor security to always be defending against the last attack. However, that doesn't mean we need to defend against every possible attack. We need to brainstorm, and then we need to look at those ideas and figure out which might be worth looking into, and what attacks are just stupid.

Of course the argument can be made that we can't tell what attacks are stupid ahead of time, but I think we can if we put a little effort into it. Because the alternative is just too wasteful, and would make us less secure.

 

[mikeford]

What we should most fear is the gradual errosion of our freedom in the name of security.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Well, 5 years ago we would have laughed if private companies said that airplanes needed to have secure cabins and that airports needed massive security projects to protect US citizens.

Hindsight is 20/20, the best security policy is to think ahead. It may seem unreal today, but may become a reality down the line. Companies spend millions of dollars protecting their network infastructure and hackers still find a way to get in. We have to treat the terrorist threat in the same way, none of us know what they are capable of doing, especially with all the illegal cash that is being funneled through some of these organizations.

There is nothing wrong with trying to think ahead to the next attack, it is poor security to always be defending against the last attack. However, that doesn't mean we need to defend against every possible attack. We need to brainstorm, and then we need to look at those ideas and figure out which might be worth looking into, and what attacks are just stupid.

Of course the argument can be made that we can't tell what attacks are stupid ahead of time, but I think we can if we put a little effort into it. Because the alternative is just too wasteful, and would make us less secure.

Agreed, except the fed is so money-drunk that even a brainstorming session can run into the billions. And there's the worry of some senator seeing a pork angle to it. Next thing you know, we HAVE to have it ASAP, and anyone who says otherwise is a "terrorist lover." 😉

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: mikeford
What we should most fear is the gradual errosion of our freedom in the name of security.

That ships already out of the harbor and half way to Istanbul, mike. TBH, most people don't seem to care all that much.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Well, 5 years ago we would have laughed if private companies said that airplanes needed to have secure cabins and that airports needed massive security projects to protect US citizens.

Hindsight is 20/20, the best security policy is to think ahead. It may seem unreal today, but may become a reality down the line. Companies spend millions of dollars protecting their network infastructure and hackers still find a way to get in. We have to treat the terrorist threat in the same way, none of us know what they are capable of doing, especially with all the illegal cash that is being funneled through some of these organizations.

There is nothing wrong with trying to think ahead to the next attack, it is poor security to always be defending against the last attack. However, that doesn't mean we need to defend against every possible attack. We need to brainstorm, and then we need to look at those ideas and figure out which might be worth looking into, and what attacks are just stupid.

Of course the argument can be made that we can't tell what attacks are stupid ahead of time, but I think we can if we put a little effort into it. Because the alternative is just too wasteful, and would make us less secure.

Agreed, except the fed is so money-drunk that even a brainstorming session can run into the billions. And there's the worry of some senator seeing a pork angle to it. Next thing you know, we HAVE to have it ASAP, and anyone who says otherwise is a "terrorist lover." 😉

Touche. Getting good security from the government is tough, especially from the elected folks.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Bumrush99
Well, 5 years ago we would have laughed if private companies said that airplanes needed to have secure cabins and that airports needed massive security projects to protect US citizens.

Hindsight is 20/20, the best security policy is to think ahead. It may seem unreal today, but may become a reality down the line. Companies spend millions of dollars protecting their network infastructure and hackers still find a way to get in. We have to treat the terrorist threat in the same way, none of us know what they are capable of doing, especially with all the illegal cash that is being funneled through some of these organizations.

There is nothing wrong with trying to think ahead to the next attack, it is poor security to always be defending against the last attack. However, that doesn't mean we need to defend against every possible attack. We need to brainstorm, and then we need to look at those ideas and figure out which might be worth looking into, and what attacks are just stupid.

Of course the argument can be made that we can't tell what attacks are stupid ahead of time, but I think we can if we put a little effort into it. Because the alternative is just too wasteful, and would make us less secure.

Agreed, except the fed is so money-drunk that even a brainstorming session can run into the billions. And there's the worry of some senator seeing a pork angle to it. Next thing you know, we HAVE to have it ASAP, and anyone who says otherwise is a "terrorist lover." 😉

Touche. Getting good security from the government is tough, especially from the elected folks.

Yup, and isn't that utterly amazing when you try to square it with the rhetoric? I would have thought that the fed was ready for most ANY emergency considering the money out the door since 9/11. Then came Katrina and the entire government (all levels) emergency response was out-to-lunch.

 

[EatSpam]

You bet I'll be stocking up on duct tape just in case. U! S! A! U! S! A! :roll: Culture of fear...and the sheep go baaaah.

 

[CaptnKirk]

We need a good ancient superstion type fear. Not some pansy like the Ledgend of Sleepy Hollow, Ichabod Crane &
his jackalantern - but something scarier than the old 'Hook on the Doorhandle' of American Folk Lore.
The English have their Werewolves, the French have their Joan of Arcs, the Scots have Golf, the Swiss have their Cheese -
even Mexico has their hideous fearmonger beast, the Chupracabra

Surely we can come up with something more frightening than, say, Dubya.

 

[mikeford]

We in the USA seem to have concerns, real change is the only thing feared.

 

[realsup]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
We need a good ancient superstion type fear. Not some pansy like the Ledgend of Sleepy Hollow, Ichabod Crane &
his jackalantern - but something scarier than the old 'Hook on the Doorhandle' of American Folk Lore.
The English have their Werewolves, the French have their Joan of Arcs, the Scots have Golf, the Swiss have their Cheese -
even Mexico has their hideous fearmonger beast, the Chupracabra

Surely we can come up with something more frightening than, say, Dubya.

We have bigfoot and thunderbird. My cousin has seen both.

 

[imported_Ant]

Makes sense that those opposing the US would target infrastructure. If they wanted to cause maximum human casualties, they could have hit the World trade centre at 3PM, instead of when it was relatively unoccupied.

Look at the investment the US government has put into anti-terrorist activities. Likely it has done very little good compared to what was already in place, apart from giving the government more power by popular vote. I think the 9/11 attacks were far more successful in those respects than anyone gives them credit for. They appear to me to have been an indirect attack on infrastructure.

The cost has been fairly high and what actual good has it done? Would it not have been better for the US Government to put the effort into recognising the issues and addressing them directly, rather than creating a smokescreen for the public?

Why does everyone think that an enemy needs to be defeated? Knock the support from under their feet and they will no longer be able to mount any kind of attack.