And should the US government realistically be doing to prevent it? Most sensible people agree that the Iraq War didn’t help, and that curtailing civil liberties is bad karma. So where is the threat now and what should the government/military/next president be doing to stop it?
Do you mean hijacking more planes and crashing them into buildings? That’s a pretty low probability, it depends on the old strategy of giving hijackers what they ask for. Now that we know we are dealing with ones who might use the planes as missiles, I don’t think terrorists would use that method anymore. Hell, it didn’t even work after 9:45 am EDT on 9/11 - by the time Flight 93 was hijacked, the method was obsolete.
The threat is ALWAYS there. It never goes away. It is as present as the possibility that tomorrow you will die of a heart attack, or an airplane will randomly crash into your home. Do you live your life in fear of these things? Me neither. Yet we’re asked to remain endlessly vigilant about something we have no control over.
It’s no wonder nobody takes it seriously anymore. It’s like looking for the Boogeyman. You’ll never find out that something is going to happen until it’s already happened.
The only reason we find out about anything is that some people can’t keep their mouthes shut about what they’re doing. While I consider that a good thing, what we’re really doing is weeding out the dumb ones in favor of the smart ones.
So, what should the US Government be doing? Nothing. What do you want the government to do?
There is absolutely zero chance that another 9/11 will occur tomorrow, given the 100% chance of another 4/3 occuring tomorrow.
Fighting a war on terrorism is much like fighting a war on domestic crime. You can attempt to control it and suppress it but it’s not something you’re ever going to end.
I spent the first (mumble) years of my life expecting to survive a nearby nuclear blast, then die of radiation poisoning. Slowly.
Eff 'em. Sure, over the next twenty years, there’ll be at least one more attack of equal stature. We can take it.
Don’t forget, even in 2001, we still had more than 12 Americans die in car accidents for every one who died in terrorist attacks.
Never gave it too much thought, but has there been a plane hijacked since 9/11? Closest thing I can think of right now is the shoe-bomber.
Pity the poor passengers who are on a plane that gets successfully hijacked nowadays. I can just hear the reaction “Why did the cowards allow themselves to be hijacked after what Flight 93 did?”
In theory, it should be much easier to end than ordinary crime, which results from apparently immutable characteristics of human nature. Any given act of terrorism is rooted in some particular political cause, which might at some point become irrelevant.
What’s the last you heard out of the Weather Underground?
I rather think that those actively involved - airline pilots - are not going to be able to reply. However, when I was working at the airport, even though it was executive jets, we were always very careful - we were also just across the flightpan from the passenger jets.
2001? Remember, we had a guy with a bomb in a truck in the basement in '93, too.
Without decending into some kind of extreme police state, there is always going to be the chance that someone (or a group of someones), armed with the right knowledge and ill intent, is going to be able to murder lots of folks, or, one very important person, IMO.
However, the politicians cannot be seen to just shrug and say “Meh. Whaddya gonna do?” They have to act concerned, and they have to look like they are on top of things.
Addendum: I do expect the government to take reasonable precautions, ones that catch the nutjobs and idiots. I don’t expect them to be able to catch the lifelong “professionals”.
BBC link of an attempt in 2006.
This was the one that resulted in the current rules about only being able to bring small quantities of liquids (e.g. shampoo) in your carry-on, to prevent the making of a bomb that, IIRC, most experts don’t seem to think is feasible to construct aboard an airplane.
And nobody’d bought tickets yet, and some of them didn’t even have passports, but the US government stampeded the Brits into arresting them.
I think that the next step for terrorist attacks within the United States would be in the form of an ongoing series of attacks on soft targets such as shopping centers, schools, hospitals, etc.
Enough pipe bombs placed in enough soft targets would go a long way in taking away any sense of security the American people would have in the routine of their daily lives.
Nobody could ever be sure where or when the terrorists would strike next.
Suicide bombers wearing explosive vests for example could cause all sorts of havoc. Say, in a single day, suicide bombers in just five U.S. cities strike at the same time, perhaps striking a hospital in one city, a transit bus in another city, then a school, a busy shopping center and perhaps just on a crowded sidewalk with lots of people; there’d be enough terror to go around for the entire nation.
If the terrorists could do something like this, say striking every day for an entire week, they could induce a deep fear and feeling of uncertainty in the entire nation.
Pipe bombs, suicide bombers wearing explosive vests, even car bombs placed in ordinary parking lots could preclude the need for one large, spectacular attack like the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001.
Lots of little terrorist attacks could equal one large terrorist attack in the fear it would produce. I’m kind of surprised the terrorists haven’t done something like this yet. Would there be any way that we could protect ourselves?
You don’t even need suicide attackers. Think about what two pissed off guys with some shooting practice and a modified car managed to do.
Now imagine if there were 20 of them and they roved randomly from city to city.
-Joe