It is very right to say that attacks on state/economic infrastructure are quickly forgotten, but attacks on innocent civilians are not. Look at the Provisional IRA: killing some poor squaddie in Belfast became very routine; suspect devices interfering with the London rail networks was annoying to Londoners and irrelevant outside London; blow up a pub in Guildford or Birmingham and everyone is terrified. Out of the 1998 embassy bombings, the USS Cole, 9/11 nad Bali, which two are foremost in the mind of the average Westerner?
Attacking civilians is also much easier than attack a military target or blowing up some reinforced structure like a bridge.
The other thing to consider is that after the act has happened it most be obviously that it was an act of terrorism, not an accident or natural disaster. So, for instance, although the forest fire idea is a great way of spreading destruction with just a 30 pence box of matches, how are we to know it wasn’t just from a cigarette or camp fire? The same would go for various other techniques, e.g. mass food poisoning.
This assumes that there is a larger strategy, as if a single person was directing each attack, coordinating them like a wedding planner. Except that lately they all appear to be happening whenever and wherever the bad guys can muster up the capability.
Also, we seem to be talking about two different things: the next terrorist attack, and the next terrorist super-attack. Granted, there’s a gray area between them. A truck bomb adjacent to a nuclear power plant is which? Depends on the amount of TV coverage (does the attack get its own logo?). What about the anthrax attacks – major news coverage, a lot of disruption, but few fatalities.
I vote dirty bomb in shipping containers, contaminating several ports simultaneously and forcing closures for over a week.
I woke up in a heart-pounding sweat from a nightmare last night. We were in a crowded public facility, where a group of gunmen with automatic weapons was mowing us down.
This seems entirely possible to me, given the easy access of guns in the U.S., and the vivid helplessness and terror of the nightmare.
The former first deputy director of the Soviet Union’s Biopreparat program, Dr. Ken Alibek, wrote in his book Biohazard about the extent the Soviet Union went to weaponizing a variety of biological agents. In addition to weaponizing drug resistant anthrax, Ebola, and a number of others they made significant progress on smallpox. He also states within the book that a number of his staff may have ended up in other countries to advance the studies after the closing of the bioweapons program.
As to whether or not other countries have smallpox, he states this:
here. Within the same he also states within the link that it is his opinion that N.Korea does have smallpox and Iraq may.
I hope that he is wrong but he is a pretty damning source.
Another short and interesting read about him can be found at The Scientist. Registration is required but it is free and they haven’t spammed me yet.
As to the OP, I vote for the simple, violent and maximizing in shock value, along the lines of what was suggested by toadspittle and leroy_the_mule. Smallpox, I pray, is to difficult for the terrorists to utilize. Guns and easily made explosives, OTOH, are cheap and plentiful, as are the people who know how to use them. I also am of the opinion that all Western Countries and their allies are as likely as the US to be hit. From the point of view of a terrorist, the differences between the US, Italians, the Turks or the Germans are few and far between. Of course, that is just a WAG.
In one of the speeches Bin Laden said “we will kill your children”. I thought of Children’s Hospital in Little Rock and a truck bomb. I was glad Clinton isn’t President.
How far away is the containment building from the interstate? Unless it’s like, 20 feet away, a chemical bomb like the Oklahoma city bomb isn’t going to do anything.
Conventional explosives rely on the overpressure from the blast to do damage. They work best in enclosed spaces like underground garages. Set off a truck bomb outside more than a few feet away from a concrete containment building, and it’ll do absolutely jack.
I would expect the next attack to be something very different. Imagine a zamboni at an NHL game, with the snow hopper filled with explosives and packed with nails and screws. Drive it out into the middle of the ice and detonate it, and you’ve got a horror on your hands. Tens of thousands of casualties. And I doubt the security is all that high around the Zamboni, y’know?
That’s the problem with a free society, when it comes to terrorism. It’s all so chaotic and there are so many ways in which people come together that you just can’t plug all the gaps. And even if you plug 99% of them, all the terrorists have to do is wait until you show your plan, then choose the other 1% of targets.
That said, my guess would be that the next target of a major attack will be Israel. al-Qaida’s stated goal is to push other Muslim countries away from the west, and cause a general muslim uprising against us. How better to inflame that situation than to goad the Israelis into an incredibly powerful counter-attack? The minute the Israeli military starts actively attacking targets in Muslim countries, the Middle East is going to go nuts.
I notice that Israel has closed the Gaza strip, and has been particularly active in arresting and busting up terrorist rings in the last week or so. I guess they’re worried about the same thing.
Oh, I would not be surprised - sadly - to see a dirty bomb detonated. That’s a twofer in the eyes of a terrorist. Immediate damage and lasting horror. Some things about technology suck.
I was just thinking this morning about the poster who said ‘something that could be played out live on t.v.’, and then I was thinking about how first they attacked our ‘evil business capitalist practices’ by bringing down WTC.
And then I thought of the Academy Awards. Sin, sex, violence, debauchery…that’s Hollywood. Live on t.v., cripple our entertainment industry?
I don’t think so. First of all, I think you underestimate security. I doubt six middle-eastern men are going to get on board any one plane without raising red flags. Secondly, six unarmed men, even martial artists, would be hard pressed to take on a plane full of angry, motivated people. We won’t get fooled again.
Finally, the pilots are smarter now. None of them tried defense maneuvering (barrel rolls or sudden changes in altitude) because they didn’t know what the terrorists were up to. And if the terrorists could somehow pry the cockpit door open, it would take time. Time for the pilot to take the plane down if he really had to.
Nope. I think an airplane is one of the safest places you can be anymore.
The Israelis claim that the Palestinians use ambulances to carry explosives.
I wonder how hard it would be to steal one when the attendents go to lunch.
If they can put together clips, why can’t we?
Make a tape wherein Osama says he likes little boys when he gets drunk every night and stuff. Thinks about Ashcroft when he whacks off.
