Comments on: Terrorism and advanced technology

By: Golf Blog

Golf Blog — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:28:08 +0000

I agree with Michael’s perspective. I think our technology should be more robust and all encompassing instead of so focused on terrorist attacks. While they are an issue, and a very sensitive one at that, because 9-11 was so recent, it is not an everyday occurrence in our country as it is in others. While 3,000 died in 9-11, how many were affected for the rest of their life? I can say almost everyone who understood what 9-11 meant. We need to get on board with our nanotechnology as a form of offense.

By: looking closely

looking closely — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:20:21 +0000

Terrorism isn’t about killing people, nor is about those who die.

Its about TERROR, ie affecting the lives, beliefs, and behaviors of those who LIVE.

The most effective terrorism doesn’t even have to kill anyone, so long as it creates fear or intimidation enough to change action or political policy.

9-11 wasn’t just about those who died, but about the massive economic and psychological damage to the country.

By: Instapundit » Blog Archive » J. STORRS HALL on terrorism and advanced technology….

Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:52:16 +0000

[...] J. STORRS HALL on terrorism and advanced technology. [...]

By: Toads

Toads — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 02:10:22 +0000

One thing people fail to remember is that on 9/11/01, their INTENT was to kill 50,000. They managed to kill 3000. So all such calculations are not meaningful without factoring in intent.

The sum total of people working in the WTC, plus the fact that United 93 had an uprising and crashed in PA rather than hit some other heavily-patronized target, reduced the death toll. The fact that the WTC towers stood for an hour before collapse, allowing at least 30,000 people to get out before it fell, is what saved the most lives. I hope people know that the full total of people working and visiting the two WTC towers on a given weekday was much more than 3000. 3000 would only be 12 people per floor, across both towers.

If the WTC towers fell as soon as they were hit, we would be adding a zero to the death toll (and thus reducing a zero from your percentage). From AQ’s point of view, the attack was actually a failure in death-toll terms (just 6% of expectations).

Remember, intent is what counts.

By: Peter G.

Peter G. — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:11:18 +0000

Michael–

You ask how many more people would die. On this point, even the original author was wrong. Even large-scale terrorism will not “raise your chance of dying by a factor of 0.0012.” How many more people will die? None.

We’re all going to die.

The only question is whether we’re going to live.

[NB: the 0.0012 increase is in chance of dying in a given year. -jsh]

By: Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 07:51:11 +0000

Re: It seems to me that there are two major ways to go. The first is prevent anyone from being able to do anything, so that the bad guys can’t build bad gadgets. The other is to do just the opposite, so that when attacks happen, they are opposed by greater capability, cause less damage, and are more quickly rebounded from.

Control the world’s education system, to eliminate bad guys at the source?

Control the world’s economic system, to make sure the guys are all working for you, and it is not in their interests to damage infrastructure?

By: James Gentile

James Gentile — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:18:14 +0000

You’d be 11 times more likely to die by suicide than an attack — and 220 times as likely to die of heart disease. The reality is a lot lower. So why are we spending so much more than a tenth of a percent of our time, energy, and angst on terrorism?

Yes, but the real problem was financial. Didn’t the US lose $2 Trillion worth of capital because of those attacks? Also, one death does not equal another death. That is why we spend so much ‘time, energy, and angst’ protecting the President of the United States. Allowing Terrorists to kill any target with equal probability of success would effectively shut the nation down, even if the terrorists could only kill a very small fraction of the population. Yes it’s not fair, and it’s hard to explain to your children, but it’s the truth of the world we live in.

But I do agree, advanced nanotechnology is the only effective long term solution to terrorism and many other issues. With nanobots everywhere monitoring and sensing the environment, suicide bombers could be detected by chemicals emitted from their explosives and neutralized before they could detonate. Although it would save relatively few lives, it would change the world profoundly for the people of the world not to live in fear of these scumbags and have to entertain their ideas for fear of being targetted. Not to mention the usual, yet ultra-profound benefits to life extension, reduction of accidents, curing diseases and aging, and eliminating poverty. Why is it no one in control of large amounts of resources knows these things? Not one billionaire of large goverment/corporation gives a damn about curing all diseases and having everyone live forever enough to donate a couple of billion to making nanorobotics? That just leaves me speechless, anyways I hope too many don’t die before such people realize what I realized 10 years ago…

By: Michael Kuntzman

Michael Kuntzman — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:10:07 +0000

“Even if a terrorist attack were to succeed every year with the full death toll of 9/11, it would raise your chance of dying by a factor of 0.0012.”

Isn’t that a little cold? Sure, your chances of dying would only rise by a tiny fraction, but how many more people would die? Personally, I’m really not concerned that I might get killed in a terrorist attack. I probably have a much higher chance of dying in a car accident. But I am concerned about terrorism because of the many lives that could be negatively affected. And the same is true for wars, hunger, disease, or any other calamity.

That said, I totally agree with the main point that it would be much more productive to make our technology (and our society) more robust, rather than live in constant fear of how many more ways will there be to disrupt it in the future. And I agree that nanotechnology would indeed help us do that.