Paranoia or common sense?

[Bruzilla]

You seem somewhat... flustered.

I'm not somewhat flustered... I am highly flustered. It just amazes me how little some people know about security.

I'll once again harken back to the raids that SEAL Team 6 did on nuclear weapons depots in order to test their security. The bases would set up these elaborate security systems, and have vast amounts of guards, and an "air tight" security plan. The SEALs would just hang out in the hills and relax. They knew when, where, and what they would attack, so they could kick back and save their energy while the folks on base ran themselves ragged waiting for the attack.

The SEALs just sat and watched, and waited until the high-level of preparedness took its toll on the base personnel, and they got tired, or lost interest, i.e., "lowered their guard", and found where the weakspots were. Then they attacked the weakspots and won every time.

It's impossible to be prepared everywhere, for everything, all the time, forever, and as long as there's one weak spot, you might as well have no defense at all. You could spend a 20 gagillion bucks building a 20-ft tall wall around 100% of America, and the bad guys would get over it using two $40 ladders from Ace Hardware.

If you really want security, you kill the folks who threaten yours. Anything else is just a feel-good waste of money.

 

[itsbob]

I'm not somewhat flustered... I am highly flustered. It just amazes me how little some people know about security.

I'll once again harken back to the raids that SEAL Team 6 did on nuclear weapons depots in order to test their security. The bases would set up these elaborate security systems, and have vast amounts of guards, and an "air tight" security plan. The SEALs would just hang out in the hills and relax. They knew when, where, and what they would attack, so they could kick back and save their energy while the folks on base ran themselves ragged waiting for the attack.

The SEALs just sat and watched, and waited until the high-level of preparedness took its toll on the base personnel, and they got tired, or lost interest, i.e., "lowered their guard", and found where the weakspots were. Then they attacked the weakspots and won every time.

It's impossible to be prepared everywhere, for everything, all the time, forever, and as long as there's one weak spot, you might as well have no defense at all. You could spend a 20 gagillion bucks building a 20-ft tall wall around 100% of America, and the bad guys would get over it using two $40 ladders from Ace Hardware.

If you really want security, you kill the folks who threaten yours. Anything else is just a feel-good waste of money.

AMEN!!!

 

[Pushrod]

Here is one of my problems with government surveillance cameras; looking into the possible future, if another terrorist attack is conducted on American soil the government could, and most likely would, establish marshall law and restrict the movements of all civilians to certain times of the day, to certain places they can go and maybe who you can interact with. Those cameras would then be used to help control the populance. I know we don't have to worry, the government has never abused any power that we the people have granted them!
Want to stop terrorist, require all willing civilians to take a firearms safety and shooting course and be armed on all public transportation, actually at all times, then lets see a terrorist try to hijack an airliner!

 

[hvp05]

I'm not somewhat flustered... I am highly flustered. It just amazes me how little some people know about security.

Gee...

Even though I started this thread out of curiosity and do not claim to be a security mastermind, I have given my best attempt to lay out a reasonable defense. Alas, my arguments simply can not stand against your tactical knowledge.

Given that obvious reality, and that you are apparently tired of this volleying, I suppose this thread has reached its climax. So, it would be silly for me to make another post on this... but if I were to do so, it would go like this:

I'll once again harken back to the raids that SEAL Team 6 did on nuclear weapons depots in order to test their security. The bases would set up these elaborate security systems, and have vast amounts of guards, and an "air tight" security plan. The SEALs would just hang out in the hills and relax. They knew when, where, and what they would attack, so they could kick back and save their energy while the folks on base ran themselves ragged waiting for the attack.

Clearly, the advantage is in favor of the attacker. As you said, the attacker knows when, where, etc. the attack is set to go down. Hence the need for a comprehensive defense plan, covering all major bases -- including a tight offense. The biggest obstacle to the one on-guard is maintaining the stamina to continue once the ball is rolling. That applies to the policeman standing watch on the NYC subway, the soldier overseas and the desk-based agent at the DHS. The possibility of failure should be an impetus to succeed, not to become discouraged and quit.

It's impossible to be prepared everywhere, for everything, all the time, forever, and as long as there's one weak spot, you might as well have no defense at all.

Yeah, I see a weak spot alright. Every security analyst I have heard from has said America's most highly-prized attribute is also it's biggest defensive disparity: our free and open society. There is currently little chance that we could detect and halt a suicide bomber if he is ambitious enough. Since this is a pretty major "weak spot", are you prepared to petition the government that all our security establishments (local police up to the DHS) be dismantled? (Think of all the money we'd save!) Or, maybe you'll call for marshal law, such as that hypothetically propounded by Mr. Pushrod?

I honestly don't expect "100% air-tight" security; hardly anything in life is that certain. I just want to explore every reasonable option. I understand that there will be wins and losses by both sides. If only the threat was limited to our airlines or subways it may be much easier to deal with. Surveillance appeals to me because, once the initial investment is made, you just let them go. They would act as the remote eyes of law enforcement; the witness when no one else is around. They would be doing what technology is supposed to do: improve our collective quality of life.

If you really want security, you kill the folks who threaten yours.

Thank you for this statement; you are truly generous. I will now paraphrase what a marvelous philosopher once told me: "It is impossible to protect yourself from every attacker coming from every angle every time." If you believe we can kill every terrorist before they reach our shores you must know less about security than I do. To reiterate something I said yesterday, the majority of our defense expenditure should be put into efforts overseas; essentially, hit them where they breed.

But what of the ones that are already here? Maybe citizens should begin forming militias, like during our nation's infancy, towards the end of extinguishing any perceived threats. Would we become genuinely safer? Or would it merely be a "feel-good" (and paranoid) answer to a complex problem? (Don't get me wrong; I am all for defending oneself, including CCW, but I am worried about many of those that might be behind the trigger. Such a concerted effort may create more difficulties than it relieves.)

It is the vow and duty of our [local and federal] government to protect us. I am sure they are taking painstaking measures to do so. If competent surveillance added another layer of security I don't see how it could be opposed. But, that's just the opinion of a dolt who hasn't a clue...

 

[Bruzilla]

Gee...

Gee... I am so glad you've done so much to live up to your handle. I'm also very glad that you're not in any position to determine how security dollars are spent.

So... another day, another series of bombings in London. You were right... all of those cameras are just deterring the hell out of the terrorists. And now the bobbies get to eat popcorn and watch hundreds of hours of video tape trying to figure out who the bad guys are. But after all the press that's been given to what the surveillance cameras picked up of the last four idiots, and in light of the fact that it doesn't look like any of these four new crazies were crazy enough to blow themselves up, I wouldn't be surprised if the cops have a hard time getting a clear image of any of them. They've managed to find and kill (good for them) one of the bombers, but that was based on eyewitness identification, not camera data.

Should we get rid of cops? Not a bad idea. I kinda long for the days of old when people were primarily responsible for taking care of themselves and protecting their own safety and property, while the cops were responsible for maintaining general order. Ah... the good old days.

But anyway, I'll once again make my point and hope that it gets past your nerdiness. There's nothing wrong with expending resources for security's sake, however, there are limits to what can be done. When those limits are exceeded, there's no real ROI from the expenditure aside from people thinking they are safe when they are not. You also need to realize that since you can't protect everything all the time, maybe... just maybe... it's a better idea to bait the bad guys into a HVT and concentrate covert security measures there?

Of course, maybe a better idea would just be to kill the media and leave the terrorists alone. 20 people can die in a building fire and the story won't make it out of the local media outlets. But let some self-proclaimed terrorist set off a bomb and kill even one person and it'll be on international news for weeks, which is exactly the attention these crazies want. Yep... kill the media people, fire the cops, and shoot the criminals. I'll vote for it!

 

[hvp05]

Gee... I am so glad you've done so much to live up to your handle. I'm also very glad that you're not in any position to determine how security dollars are spent.

And I am glad I could induce you to chuckle -- which you have probably already done numerous times. I don't think I would do any worse than many of the folks that do have power. Consider the random bag searches being conducted at certain NYC subway stations; that appears to me to be a waste.

So... another day, another series of bombings in London. You were right... all of those cameras are just deterring the hell out of the terrorists.

I would appreciate you quoting where I said that surveillance would deter criminals/terrorists. You must be thinking of vrai, Ken King or Railroad.

Speaking of quotes, I have one for you. One day you said this to SmallTown: "Had the bombings not been successful, why would the police have any need to review the tapes?" Now we have this most recent incident. The bombs were, fortunately, not armed properly and the attack was resultingly unsuccessful. And now they have video of the [remaining] guys who perpetrated the attempt. The police received rudimentary descriptions from witnesses but the video will go so much further and is not prone to subjectivity. Investigators can immediately go hunting for these guys instead of waiting to gather "pretty good" leads.

Should we get rid of cops? Not a bad idea.

Yeah, I can imagine this working in modern society. Although, you did confuse me to a degree because you first indicate we should remove police, but then we should also employ them for general order.

You are evidently well-versed on police and law. So you should know that most police strongly oppose the idea of "vigilante justice", mainly because it tends to lead to more disruption. How do you establish your personal justice system? What is your threshold on who presents a threat? That is to say, what types of "offenders" are you willing to kill to make yourself feel safer?

Imagine this: You live in a nice, quiet neighborhood. You recently acquired a new neighbor; he's a single man of Middle Eastern descent whose name is Ahmed. Over the next few weeks you notice that he receives frequent visitors, most of whom are also Middle Eastern. He also receives packages often. Do you:
(a) Shoot him because he's probably a terrorist and probably planning something?
(b) Call in a tip to the DHS?
(c) Assume he's just a normal guy? (Say, his friends are coming over to watch the game, and his packages are all from L.L. Bean.)

There's nothing wrong with expending resources for security's sake, however, there are limits to what can be done. When those limits are exceeded, there's no real ROI from the expenditure aside from people thinking they are safe when they are not.

Okay, that makes sense. And I don't know that we have ever really disagreed on that. We disagree on what those limits are. I am more willing to explore advantages offered by technology and you want things the "old-fashioned way".

You also need to realize that since you can't protect everything all the time, maybe... just maybe... it's a better idea to bait the bad guys into a HVT and concentrate covert security measures there?

I would be fascinated to know how you would "bait" them. Let me present you with an example you gave to me a couple days ago. You can focus on a certain area and feel assured in your coverage there, all the while a terrorist is unleashing his bomb on a schoolbus. The terrorists don't ultimately care if they can strike an HVT or not; they just want to hit us. Breaching our security, confidence and disrupting our free way of life is what gets them off. The number of victims and other areas are secondary. (Think back to post-9/11. Osama said he hadn't even planned or expected the towers to fall; he considered that a bonus. It was the invasion itself he relished.)

Yep... kill the media people, fire the cops, and shoot the criminals. I'll vote for it!

Well, as soon as I see that come up on a local or national legislative docket I'll let you know. (But I wouldn't hold my breath...)

 

[Bruzilla]

You bait a terrorist by thinking like a terrorist and not a criminal or a soldier. The point of a terrorist is to inflict fear, not to hold territory or to steal. Therefore a terrorist has a pretty much set group of HVTs to go after, which they will divert from if the risk to survival is too high, or if dealing with suicide bombers, the risk of success. For example, I think the biggest deterence to plane hijackers now is not screeners, detectors, or all the other federal BS in place... it's the arming of pilots. In order for a hijacking to be successful, the hijacker has to take control of the aircraft. Back in the day, all you needed to be the Big Dog on a plane was a knife, which was easy to get aboard. Now with an unknown number of armed pilots, the only way for a hijacking to succeed is for the hijacker to also have a gun, which is not impossible to do nowadays, but the chances of success are pretty slim.

If you understand that terrorists want to make a big show on the news, and not defeat an enemy, you don't waste millions of dollars ramping up security at military bases for example... the terrorists aren't going to go there. You don't spend millions of dollars equipping first responders in Dogpatch, Iowa with equipment to thwart anthrax attacks... the terrorists aren't going there either. You pick out the HVTs, and then develop covert surveillance around them. Get the bad guys to come to you. Being strong in the important places is much better than being weak because you're spreading yourself too thin.

By the way... I still think the best tool against terrorism was still the futures market that DARPA was trying to deploy and that got shutdown because of public criticism of people trying to make money by "betting" on when and where the next terrorist attack would occur. The operational security of a terrorist group might be airtight, but they still have to move money to commit attacks, and there's no way to move money and maintain airtight security. People in Arab banks know that the money is moving, and where it's moving to. They also know when a lot of that money is suddenly returned, and where it's being returned from... a pretty good clue as to when/where an attack will happen. And while an employee of those banks likely won't feel a need to call 1-800-CIA1, they might want to make a few bucks by investing in the futures market. But alas... they caved to public opinion and sent the money to the Dogpatch VFD.

Oh yeah... when I was talking about failed attacks I was talking about suicide attacks. Apparently none of these four attacks were suicide bombers... they were drop and depart operations. Completely different rule set. A suicide bomber that can't detonate would take his bomb and go home. These guys set the timers and ran off before seeing them detonate.

 

[hvp05]

This is veering off topic, but maybe it will be interesting...

For example, I think the biggest deterence to plane hijackers now is not screeners, detectors, or all the other federal BS in place... it's the arming of pilots.

Yeah, that's a nifty idea... but the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association says it's not currently running as well as planned. Their latest "Aviation Security Report Card" gave the FFDO program a "D" because, "although TSA has doubled its training classes recently, far too few pilots are being trained and deputized." Also, "the application process is very cumbersome which turns pilots away from the program." That's not to say the program can't work, it just needs improvement; ultimately, the current threat to a potential attacker is fairly low.

There is a similar state for the FAM's: there are just too few. The simple solution of reinforcing the cockpit door is a good help, but not inpenetrable.

Lastly, I think you overlooked a crucial point in combating these suicide attackers: they are suicide attackers. What's the worst result for them -- they will be killed? A foregone conclusion. On the other hand, they know that every flight crewmember and passenger has a family they want to see at day's end. If the attackers can at least make an impact there and impact our overall sense of security they will be quite pleased.

If you understand that terrorists want to make a big show on the news, and not defeat an enemy, you don't waste millions of dollars ramping up security at military bases for example...

Couldn't they more easily join the circus if they only wanted to put on a "big show"? Their rhetoric makes them sound pretty intent on destroying us, but I guess that view is not absolute.

I am pretty sure we will not see any terrorist strikes in old Dogpatch, population 100... but it may be advantageous for them to strike in the heartland because that would clearly convey the point that everyone is at risk in this war, not just those in the cities. The most intense security and funds dispersement should go to NYC and Atlanta and San Francisco, et al., but every town nationwide should stay alert.

Think: How many people outside Oklahoma City knew of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building before 19 April, 1995?

By the way... I still think the best tool against terrorism was still the futures market that DARPA was trying to deploy

(Mind you, I know nothing of this...)

Apparently none of these four attacks were suicide bombers... they were drop and depart operations. Completely different rule set.

Yeah... a rule set that demanded the prompt identification of each bomber. And hence we return to the original argument. As you may be aware, two of the bombers have been ID'd and they are hot on the tails of the others. The Tube surveillance photos could have, ideally, been of better quality, but now that these two have been fingered the police can disseminate certified information to track the suspects.

In the aftermath we are witnessing the proverbial knee jerking left and right. Several cities have already apportioned money for surveillance systems, which may range from only $2 million up to $10 million. Officials are also contemplating the implementation of "smart surveillance" -- something that I touched on earlier in this thread -- that is supposed to be able to tell when someone is loitering or entering a restricted area. Another type of system on the board is the chemical sensor, to be placed in hot areas and meant to "sniff" dangerous chemicals, vapors, etc. And you have already seen the deployment of hundreds of officers in NYC to do random bag searches. The city has had to put up millions in overtime pay and so forth, but that is, as city officials stated, "the cost of safety". (Some sarcasm there...)

How much will those plans pay off? It's hard to tell, as they haven't snagged a potential suicide bomber stupid enough to walk into a bag check. I have said it before, but I will reiterate for your convenience: I strongly support the funding and use of reasonable anti-crime/terrorism measures. I am not so sure all of those measures listed above are very sound. If NYC police feel bag checks are so important, why weren't they doing them on 6 July? If they are simply dumping money into a useless hole in the name of "safety" it does not do anyone any good.

Hopefully, our great leaders realize that and will temper the fears of the people with rationality so that we can most effectively prevent the next terrorist attack -- where and whenever that may be.