Why we aren’t getting bombed
By Dan on Feb 13, 2008 in Blog, Politics
Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, as sensible a columnist as you’ll find, wrote an interesting piece last week on why, nearly six and half years after 9/11, we’ve been spared the follow-up act that we were told to expect.
In the wake of 9/11, many experts said that a nuclear attack carried out by terrorists was inevitable. However, Chapman cites a presentation by John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor, who makes the case that the chances of a terrorist group being able to carry out such a threat are “vanishingly small.”
He goes on to explain the logistics involved in obtaining, transporting, and then detonating a nuclear bomb on American soil, and all of the many ways that such an effort could be road blocked, screwed up or thwarted along the way. You can read more about it here.
I’m not suggesting that this Mueller fellow has the final word on whether terrorists are capable of hitting us with the big one, although I did find his reasoning sound and reassuring. This topic did get me to thinking of a question that I’ve had for some time – why haven’t terrorists attacked us at all?
I’ve often thought that if Al Qaeda really wanted to make Americans fear for their safety and destroy our national psyche, they could do so with several small-scale attacks. Have a suicide bomber detonate himself at a county fair in Nebraska. Have a car bomb go off outside a nightclub in Tallahassee. Plant a bomb on a bus in Toledo. None of these would be as spectacularly horrific as driving a plane into the Sears Tower, but they would serve to make Americans fear for their safety, no matter where they live.
I can offer several theories on why they haven’t employed such a strategy, each is as speculative and uninformed as the one next.
The Compassionate Theory: Despite being told of sleeper cells in place in the United States, there aren’t any terrorists in our midst who are willing and capable of executing even a minor attack. It’s well known that Muslims are much more assimilated into mainstream society here than they are in most European countries. Without a large radical base in the U.S., perhaps those who might be inclined to inflict harm lack the support they would need. For that we can thank the moderate Muslims who dominate the religion and a case is made that diplomatic measures are more effective than military actions.
The Hard Ass Theory: State sponsors of Al Qaeda, having witnessed us go psycho after 9/11, fear for their regimes and tell bin Laden that any further attacks on U.S. soil will result in them selling him down the river. Despite our missteps in Iraq, the U.S. is still feared throughout the world and even the craziest of extremists think twice before tugging on our cape.
The Heaven’s Gate Theory: bin Laden is a megalomaniac who is determined that the next attack should greatly surpass the carnage inflicted on 9/11. He’s like the out-of-control movie director trying to create the most grandiose epic ever put to film. Now vastly over budget and having lost control of his cast and crew, he’s no closer today to realizing his vision than he was six years ago.
“It’s the Red Hats” Theory: Despite all of their dastardly doings, the Red Hats unintentionally serve as our protectors by ruling the underworld with an iron handbag. Their complete control of black market weapons trafficking has keeps the needed fire power out of terrorist hands.
[Your Theory Next] For those who complain that BFS has gone all soft and fluffy, here’s your chance to comment on national security, foreign relations, religious tolerance, global geopolitics, and Red Hats. Chew on that, why don’t ya!
Loading ...
BFS, soft and fluffy???? Never! Although your abundant enthusiasm for the Borges chick is a little concerning. She sounds good and all, but in a really accessible pop kind of way. Maybe I just need to hear more. I gotta believe you’re hearing something I’m not.
I like Chapman’s theory. I’m not one to underestimate the enemy, but I think Chapman’s right that the mere desire to detroy America is met with lots and lots of stategic obstacles.
nancy | Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
I’ll have to ponder the whole terrorist thing for a while but I felt a need to respond to Nancy’s comments immediately. As a point of refence, the SBBS (Sarah Borges and Broken Singles) song Dan posted is Jenna’s favorite from their latest CD. My daughter Jenna, age 9. My point being, that particular song does lend itself to the pop-loving Hannah Montana crowd (although I enjoy that song with Jenna, loud and with the windows down). You really owe it to yourself not to judge the entire book by this cover. Both Diamonds in the Dark and their debut CD, Silver City, are chock full of great songs. Most are original, but there are also some covers, including a cover of Tom Waits’ Blind Love which I particularly enjoy. Nothing very poppy about that one. ‘Stop and Think it Over’, while fun, is not the best illustration of Sarah’s amazing voice.
I also think that, having met and hung out with the band on a few occassions now, we have grown even more fond of their music because we are so fond of them. They are genuine and fun and just basically nice people. And, they put on one hell of a live performance.
Laura | Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
OK, I’ll give another listen. I trust you and Dan musically.
nancy | Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
I think one of the factors, not the only one but A factor, is that Alqaeda is actually scared of how we might retaliate. I think they fear George Bush after the “shock and awe” bitch slapping that he laid on them after 9/11 and dont want to subject themselves to our wrath.
RickMonday | Feb 13, 2008 | Reply
I like the “It’s the Red Hats Theory.” Those people have single-handedly gotten around the Illinois concealed-carry law by possessing some potent handbags (I’ve been slapped by a few in my day).
Steven | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
I think it is because they are scared. They see us American males, and we have, well, armadillos in our trousers. They are quite fearful. They come to the airport, see us, and run back to the plane screaming.
That is my theory anyway.
Anonymous | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
LOVE anonymous’s theory!
nancy | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Ok – back to the terrorists. For me, due to recent events, I am less afraid of an Al Quaeda inspired attack on America than I am of the American guy behind me at the check-out counter. The rampages in very public places in Omaha, Tinley Park and Kirkwood in the last several weeks suggest that while foreign terrorists may be deterred by the threat of the the Red Hats, the American male is obviously not. The relative ease with which those attacks were pulled off does make me fearful. These were men already living comfortably and ‘under the radar’ within our borders.
Laura | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
I agree with you that safety at home is a growing problem. What we need to do is teach gun handling, shooting, and safety in our schools. Unlike driving which is a privledge and taught in our schools, gun ownership is a right and thus should also be taught. The more armed citizens we have, the less crime we will have.
RickMonday | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
Laura gave a pretty good answer as to where the love for SBBS comes from. It’s a combination of good songs, fun live shows, and a strong desire to see such nice, dedicated, and ego-less people make a name for themselves in the music industry.
Anonymous,
The United Nations Security Council has on several occasions dismissed the Armadillos in our Trousers hypothesis as baseless conjuncture. Perhaps they’re just envious.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Dan
I’m all about supporting nice people who make decent music. I mean really, it’s not that the Harty Boys were super awesome, but they WERE super cute and a lot of fun to hang out with, thus precipitating my groupie status.
Did Derek Smalls testify before the UN Security Council on that issue?
nancy | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Mr Monday, that’s funny. I was actually thinking just the opposite. It is obviously already too damn easy to get a gun in this country, I don’t think we need to be arming even more people.
Laura | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
I respect your right to disagree with my point but hear me out please.
You are right, it is too easy to get a gun, as it should be. It is a right put into the constitution, just like free speech. Do you think it is too easy to voice your opinion on blogs or other media?
If more people were properly trained to handle a gun a practice proper gun safety there were be far fewer accidents and idiots like the clown who shot up NIU would not be able to commit as much damage as they did today, for the students could shoot back.
There is a book out called “More Guns Less Crime” written by a former Yale (boola boola) statistician John Lott who proves that violent crime decreases significantly when the population can carry guns. The theory is that the criminal is afraid of who will shoot back and thus be less likely to commit the violent crime.
Again, I respect your right to disagree on this issue, but I think we would be better off because of it.
RickMonday | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
I absolutely respect your right to your opinion, I just happen to totally disagree with you.
Did you really mean to say that it should be too easy to get a gun?
Just because I CAN do something, doesn’t mean I SHOULD do something. You seem to have a ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ mentality, and I just think we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. We can and should do better than that. I think of all the times throughout our history that thank God people didn’t take that stance.
Take a tense situation like being confronted by a gunman, and have more people firing more guns, and I’m sorry but I’m just not convinced that’s going to yield the better outcome. As for your claim that gunmen would be deterred by the possibility of being shot back at,that just doesn’t ring true to me at all. How often during these mass shootings (including this afternoon at NIU) do we hear that the gunman takes his own life at the conclusion of his rampage? These guys don’t fear the threat of being shot at; they don’t care if they die and in most cases, they seem to actually prefer it.
Laura | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Laura’s argument is dead-on, no pun intended. Further complicating these mass killings should everyone be armed (Virginia Tech, NIU,) how are the police supposed to know who started the massacre? If everyone is just shooting, how would even a well-intentioned vigilante keep from shooting another vigilante? Or is it being suggested during this sort of adrenaline-charged situation, the gun training we’ve all hopefully received will kick in and all will act with a cool head, ask questions first and then blow the head off the correct person later?
It terrifies me that some yahoo who can’t keep from screaming and gesturing out their car window after being cut off might have easier access to some heat.
Yay violence!
nancy | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
Ok, you make a good point that the gunmen in most of these situations are crazy and probably dont care too much about their own lives.
Then what do you think is the answer. Actually, in Illinois, it isnt that easy to get a gun. You have to pass as background check, pay for a FOID card which takes about 6 weeks to process, and then we have a waiting period.
Now obtaining an illegal gun might be easier, but even I would not know where to go. Do I venture into an unsafe neighborhood to obtain one and risk my well being? I think not. Seriously, I would not know where to begin.
Furthermore, we will never be able to ban all guns. Even if we did, we have over 300 million guns already in the US and we cant confiscate them all. A few years ago at Appalachian State University there was a crazy gunman who opened fire on campus. He killed 3 people but was taken out by other students. You didnt here too much about this in the liberal media but the students there probably saved many lives.
I am just suggesting that the police cannot be everywhere all the time. We have to be able to protect ourselves in some manner.
To Nancy, there are 48 States that allow some kind of concealed carry laws. Illinois and Wisconsin are the only 2 States that dont allow any type of concealed carry (except for former law officers). I really dont hear about too many incidents of bars being shot up by drunks or road rage incidents in say Florida or Texas. Why? I believe that people are generally good and abide by the laws of our society.
RickMonday | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Must be that conservative media in Texas and Florida keeping that information from us!
nancy | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Here is my middle-of-the-road response to the conceal carry debate.
First, you have to be careful discounting something because it doesn’t “ring true.” Sometimes the truth isn’t what we want it to be or think it should be. Sometimes the truth defies what we consider to be common sense.
This is why, despite the fact that the idea scares me, that I can’t dismiss at hand conceal carry laws. There have been studies that show they are effective in reducing crime. Now, do those studies hold up to scrutiny, I don’t know.
It’s important to remember that correlation isn’t causation. It would seem to me that a state that would pass a conceal carry law would also likely put a lot of money towards law enforcement and prosecute crimes very aggressively. Maybe these factors are what is driving down crime, and not that fact that citizens are packing.
Even if the decrease in crime can be directly attributed to conceal carry, you can’t assume that crime will continue to decline as the number of conceal carry licenses rises. It could reach a tipping point where crime starts to rise even higher than pre-conceal carry law numbers. That’s just speculation, however.
That said, we can teach people how to shoot and handle guns safely, but we can’t control the behavior of a hot-tempered driver who has been cut off in traffic. If he has a gun on his hip, the chance that he’ll pull it on a careless but otherwise innocent citizen is many, many times greater than if he had to go home, get his gun, and then track down the driver. First of all, he’d probably never be able to find him, and secondly, by that time he would have cooled off enough to realize that a traffic infraction isn’t worth shooting someone over.
Certainly there are times when an innocent life or lives could have been saved if a responsible, armed citizen were there to intercede. But it’s also likely that minor altercations will be elevated due to the presence of fire arms during the heat of the conflict. Does the former outweigh the latter, I really don’t know.
Finally, let me just say that SBBS are more than just a “decent” band in my opinion. They’ve received some much-deserved critical acclaim for their songwriting, musicianship, and Sarah’s voice. I was impressed the first two times I saw them, in Boston and here in Springfield, and that was before I got to know what swell folks they are.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
My turn.
As I have stated before on this site I could live with either stance on gun control as both sides have merit.
I must take to task however the assertion from several that having a gun in one’s possession would lead them to use it in a fit of anger. There are a lot of people currently carrying concealed weapons, (both legally and illegally) driving, and getting pissed off at other motorist. Where are all the headlines of them using their guns on these poor drivers?
Just because one may exhibit anger doesn’t mean that they will take that anger to the extreme. I have been in plenty of arguments in my life where I was very angry and yet did not punch, kick, or shoot anyone. Who are all these people that will use their guns indiscriminately when faced with anger? Do you have some people in mind? The only ones I know are the ones who are currently pre-disposed to illegally carrying guns and using them in anger.
It is my belief that if the ability to carry a concealed weapon was stringintly tied to one’s ability to prove that they are physically, and mentally competent to do so that we would be less-likely to see their guns used in a fit of anger than we already see happening in our world.
M.B. | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Two quick points . . .
First of all, RickMonday left out a crucial detail in his citation of the Appalachian State incident from 2002. Yes, the gunman was halted by two armed studsents(and ultimately tackled and subdued by a few others). However, both of those students (Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross) were law enforcement officers (Gross was a police officer and Bridges was a county sheriff’s deputy). This makes a difference – we are not talking about a scenario in which well armed private citizens ran off to take the law into their own hands with little or no understanding of how to control the situation. No, this is a case where heroic men did what they were well trained to do – and I applaud there efforts. But letting loose the citizenry to open fire when they feel threatened is precarious public policy to endorse. That is, unless you’re comfortable with a society based on the Tao of Bernard Goetz . . .
Second – if you are going to insist on arming the citizenry, I think you should go all the way. Saturday Night live had a skit showing a small town that required it’s populace to carry ballistic missiles. Concealed handguns weren’t enough, they opined – only M.A.D. can do the trick . . .
rock-robster | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
SJR online is reporting that two of the handguns used in yesterday’s rampage at NIU were legally purchased less than a week ago.
nancy | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Sorry, one handgun and one shotgun.
nancy | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Thanks for filling in the details Rock, I did not know that those 2 were officers. However, that begs another question. What happens when the heroic officers are not around?..you get NIU, VT, Columbine and others. You have to look at both sides of the coin.
RickMonday | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Dan, ok, if you don’t like ‘doesn’t ring true’ then how about this – I don’t buy it. I don’t believe that the threat of being shot at by John Q Public who may or may not be packing is going to deter a freak intent on opening fire in a campus lecture hall. Quite the contrary – I think the inherent risk is part of what is motivating them in the first place.
I always figured (and I could be wrong here) that the illegally obtained guns were just stolen from someone who had legally obtained them. So if legal guns were harder to obtain, there would be less of them to steal and therefore less of them ending up in the hands of the wrong people.
I will also admit that I am opposed to the ’sport’ of hunting so I am quick to dimiss that as a legitimate reason for having firearms. And I’ve also never felt so unsafe in my home that I felt the need to have a gun for protection; perhaps I’m just lucky in that regard, that I’ve never lived in a place where I felt that kind of fear. So for me I just can’t rationalize the need for widespread ‘legal’ gun ownership in the first place, and as I said, if there were less legal guns to steal, there would be less illegal guns used by freaks to kill kids trying to get out of their Geology class.
Laura | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Laura,
What I was saying is that you shouldn’t dimiss studies that show that conceal carry laws reduce crime, unless you can show that those studies are in some way flawed.
I agree that the guy who killed five people at NIU would not have been deterred if he thought some of the students would fire back. However, not every criminal is a suicidal mass murderer. Most aren’t.
Some criminals just want a wallet or a car and will brandish a weapon to convince their victim to hand it over without incident. If they think that the person they’re targeting might have a gun, and might even be more skilled at using it than they are, then I do see how that could be a deterrent.
I agree the world would be a safer place without guns and that hunting is not very sporting, but realistically, they’re a part of our culture that isn’t going away anytime soon.
As I said, I’m not sold on conceal carry laws and they do scare me to a degree, but I do think you have to take an objective look at the big picture and see if maybe we wouldn’t be safer if more of the good guys were armed.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Laura has reminded me of an idea that I will implement whenever I am elected to some kind of implementation office.
She made the point that illegal guns are most likely stolen from legal purchasers (I’m leaving myself wide open here because that’s only an assumption. If there is a huge handgun smuggling operation going on, then my idea won’t be as effective.)
Here goes: the owner of a legally purchased weapon is forever responsible for damage/death/crime that results from its use. So many gun proponents say that they have weapons to protect their families and property. It is my assertion that the owner and the gun have failed miserably in that mission if it was able to be stolen. If a home is broken into while the owner is home, the weapon should have been used to blast the intruder. However, if the owner wasn’t home, the gun should be locked away in a secure gun safe, unable to be stolen. The NRA boasts of its gun safety education, so it stands to reason that without the licensed owner in possession of the weapon it should be secured properly.
Of course, the punk that stole the gun should be responsible for the crimes too.
If lifetime responsibility for all damage caused by a gun were contractually included in its purchase, I would support gun ownership.
nancy | Feb 16, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
Here’s the standard NRA-issue response to such assertions:
If someone steals your car and then commits vehicular homicide while fleeing the police, should you be held partly responsible for the crime?
Now, I’m not saying that’s a good analogy, but that’s what you’ll be asked to address if you’re ever elected to implementation office and try to enact a lifetime responsibility law for guns.
You raise a good point with gun safety, which is a sticky issue for gun rights activists. Perhaps a firearm owner can address this quandary.
For a gun to offer protection against surprise intruders, it has to be loaded and readily accessible.
To ensure that a gun isn’t stolen or doesn’t pose a danger to a child, it needs to be locked away in a safe place.
How do gun owners achieve both of those objectives?
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Feb 16, 2008 | Reply
Ok, Dan, I get your point re: the study on the effectiveness of conceal carry laws (although I tend to think that if you look hard enough you can find a study to back up whatever point you are trying to make). But, let’s assume that a conceal carry law is the most workable solution to preventing or curtailing the types of gun violence we’ve been discussing. How do you implement it? The logistics of it confound me.
Does it mean that, in order to protect ourselves, we all need to start toting concealed weapons with us everyhwere we go? You never know where a crime may be perpetrated, so to be effective, wouldn’t we need our gun with us at all times? We’ve all heard plenty of stories of disgruntled employees trying to take out their co-workers in the office, so do we all need to start bringing guns to work? We’ve heard stories of crazies storming into a place of worship mid-service, so do we all need to start bringing our guns to church? And, as we’ve most recently been discussing, unfortunately all too often these crimes are taking place in classrooms, so do we need to start sending our kids off to school with weapons. When you’re packing Susie’s lunch, don’t forget to pack the heat! Or if that’s too ridiculous, what do we do – arm the teachers? Clear a place next to the fire extinguisher and the pencil sharpener for the Glock?
I may be getting carried away but I’m asking the question in all seriousness. Is there any place we would exclude from the conceal carry law, or would every place be fair game?
As M.B. pointed out, there are already people throughout society carrying concealed weapons (legally as well as unlegally). I believe that’s true. So aren’t would-be criminals already faced with the possibility that their victim is carrying a gun? But it doesn’t seem to stop them, so how much more effective would a conceal carry law be?
Laura | Feb 16, 2008 | Reply
Wow – did I really type the word ‘unlegally’?
Laura | Feb 16, 2008 | Reply
Once again, I’m not taking sides on this one but if you Google “armed citizens” one can come up with numerous instances where an armed citizen thwarted a crime. Additionally, and I know this isn’t the exact point of this debate, but one can also Google “off-duty officer shoots suspect” and get many more references of criminals being apprehended or thwarted by someone armed.
On the flip-side, I would think that the number of times that an armed citizen could positively impact a crime in progress, compared to the number of crimes that occur where someone would be justified in using a gun to apprehend a criminal is pretty minuscual.
M.B. | Feb 18, 2008 | Reply
The arguement to rid society of guns holds little credibility in any case. You can compare firearms and drugs if you like. Illegal drugs are just that, illegal. Yet they are rampant in our society, if you want them you can get them. Trying to make firearms illegal would have the same type of effect. You won’t EVER get rid of them, just like you’ll never get rid of illegal drugs. The similarities are there. A “criminal” looking for a gun will know where to go to get one. Just like the crack head needing his fix knows where to go to get that. Making owning a legal firearm illegal would not change much, it will drive the sale and the market for them underground, just like the drug trade, and look how tough of a time we have combating that.
All of your ideas and visions of a kinder, gentler place are way off base. Place the blame on the criminals and no where else, please. These problems in our society go way deeper than the stance of….”is it right or wrong to own a gun”….that’s a cop out, the easy way out. You never address the deeper problem with our society in general, just put a band-aid on it and hope it gets better.
Now……..where did I leave those hollow-points?
Chaz | Feb 20, 2008 | Reply
I usually dont have time to leave comments on sites, but I just wanted to say I like your site.
Watson | Apr 5, 2009 | Reply