From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 12:28:22 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Net and Terrorism.
In-Reply-To: <adfea141010210040a34@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960702200153.383A-100000@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> At 6:58 AM 7/2/96, snow wrote:
> >T.C. May wrote:
> >Can anything be done? To stop the likely effects of lots more
> >surface-to-air missiles, lots more nerve gas available on the black market,
> >and so on?
> >In a word, "no."
> >/*
> >     I disagree. Terrorism, political terrorism is fear. There are ways to
> >protect military targets that are quite cost effective, unfortunately they
> >are politically unpopular. (What just happend in Saudi is on my mind.
> >STUPID military commanders getting the same pie in the face time and time
> >again. There is NOTHING so unchanging as the military mind set.)
> 
> Well, attacks on military targets are almost, by definition, not
> "terrorism." (I'll spare the list a debate about the semantics; U.S.
> journalists tend to refer to anything done to "us" as "terrorism," whether
> the target is military or civilian.)

     I think a clear line can be established between terrorist
incidents and battles/fights/raids/attacks carried out by other
"legitimate" troops or guerilla fighters. 

     Military troops can best be protected by 3 seperate methods:

    1)  Don't put them in situations were they are targets for terrorism 
        abroad. Soldiers and Marines exist to elivate the ENEMIES body
        counts, not ours. By putting troops trained to fight in defensive 
        passive positions you are exposing them to terrorist attacks, and 
        ruining their combat reflexes. 

     2) When they _are_ exposed, let them fight the fuck back. Rules of 
        engagment are simple. When fired on, shoot to kill. If the shot 
        comes from a building, take out the building. If from a crowd, 
        well, do you best, but _get the shooter_. 
 
     3) Again when operating in a potentially deadly enviroment, follow the
        standard anti-terrorist rules. Vary your routines, don't bunch up,
        Be unpredictable. None of these were done in the Saudi blast, Nor 
        where they done in Beruit 12 years ago. 

> The focus of my comments was really on civilian or non-military targets.
> (Including destruction of government buildings, maybe. I'm not sure whether
> the Oklahoma City bombing and the recent Phoenix/Viper Militia case is
> "terrorism" in a formal sense, or counter-government action, but my point
> is that such things are likely to be happen.)

	IMO the Ok. bombing was a terrorist attack. The attack was carried
out by a civilian (in the sense that he was not acting as a part of any 
government, official or otherwise and not wearing a uniform etc.) 

> >Civilian targets are harder to protect, but certain steps can be
> >taken to lessen chances of a sucessful attack.
> Sure, any particular "soft target" can be hardened to some extent. But not
> all of them, and even harder sites can be reached. This is left as an
> exercise for the reader.
> (Hint: The Japanese cult's Sarin gas attack on the subways...there are tens
> of thousands of comparable targets in the U.S. alone. Look around, and ask
> what it would take to harden each one. A minor cryptographic connection is
> that hardening N of M sites makes the remaining M - N sites all the more
> tempting.)

     I kinda mis-spoke. The way I should have put it was: 	
	
     Steps can be taken to make attacks less likely, and to make it easier 
to capture the individuals responcible afterwords. 

    Think about it. Why have we had so little terrorism in this country? 
This is one of the most diverse countries in the world, we allow damn near
anyone breathing into this country, yet we have much less terrorism than 
does England, France, Germany etc. 
     
     Why? IMO It is opportunity. Maybe everyone who emigrates here doesn't 
get rich, but they are almost _all_ better off than in their original
countries. By keeping this country as free as possible, and allowing the
free exchange of ideas, not jailing (too many) people for political/religious
opnions you at least give the appearance that they can change things w/out
killing things and breaking people. This makes it much harder for the 
potential terrs. to get the financial backing. It also reduces sympathy for 
them in the community. 

     IMO as long as people have the illusion of freedom and upwards 
mobility coupled with the ability to pray to the stupidity of their choice
things will maintain an even keel in this country. You will have the 
occasional UniBomber, but I don't think you will get anything like that 
Japanese Cult w/sarin. Then again we have come close. 
 
> >Another method, and this would be very unpopular (and
> >hypocritical of the US) would be simply to announce that we (the Country)
> >are going to hold the _manufacturing_ nation responcible for the use of
> >weapons of mass destruction. So if Soviet Nerve Gas is used, we gas a
> >city in the Soviet Union. MAD carried to a lower level.
> You are essentially making my point, that the biggest danger of the current
> responses to terrorism is that nations will turn to national terrorism and
> police state tactics.

	I missed that in your original post. 

> >A third option is quite simply to buy as much of it as possible.
> No, wouldn't work. As with the "War on (Some) Drugs," all this does is
> raise the price a bit, actually making it a more tempting market for many
> to get into.

	If the US were to offer Russia $3 billion (or whatever) 
in a one time take it or leave it for their entire chemical weapon stock,
it might get the soviet shit off the market. The nuclear stuff is a little 
easier to store (I think) and it would be a harder sell. 

	I agree tho' that it isn't possible to buy out the market. 
 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com