Lisa starts off part three discussion!
I had a couple questions on this section.
Tom wrote (pg 77)...
“Without the ability to clearly represent the exact and true situation, to include all that is known and what things are unknown.”
I'd love a concrete example of this thinking because I'm thinking if it’s unknown how can you know…. How do you plan for unknowns? what am I missing here?
And Tom wrote..
“ A person who threatens has a different mind than one who builds a weapon that is a threat.” Tom can you tell us more ? How does this apply or not apply to Osama Bin Laden ?
I found the differentiation of WME and WMD to be useful. I agree with Tom he wrote( Pg 76) “Weapons of Mass Destruction was mentioned previously.Without semantics and assignment of specific definition, the term is used to describe everything from a minor amount of anthrax or nerve agent to the most powerful of nuclear weapons. The problem is that in current usage the term demands attention; attention which may not be warranted."
Tom wrote (pg 65)
“The intent of terrorism is specifically to inculcate fear in the target population and affect the psychology of the society.”
IMO, this point cannot be said enough. Every time we think about terrorism, hear of a potential threat, watch or read something about terrorism in the media, listen to the government or hear about an attack we need to remind ourselves of the “terrorist intent.” Especially considering what Tom wrote on pg 79
“Keep in mind, to move toward victory the terrorist does not have to kill people, he only needs to keep the target responding within the parameters and perception that the terrorist has created.
On pg 67 Tom wrote…
“The statement: “If this saves one life, it is worth the effort?” cannot be the national threshold.”
I think it’s salient point and I agree….and he wrote
“ because action and security may have to be deferred to ensure that the terrorist idea is being defeated.” Pg 74
and I was thinking yes, yet when I read pg 68 that “The Soviets lost 20 million…” “…..an acceptable threshold is not in the thousands –and may not even be in the tens of thousands”
I want to say forget it, I have difficulty saying Yes to that point, even though I know logically it should follow. I know we find 43,000 motor vehicle deaths a year to be an acceptable level, as we go with the plans we have in place to keep driving safe, we don't panic, and over haul the whole system or throw an inordinate amount of money in to attempting to making roads safer…( although maybe we should do more than we do. )
No, we accept that lost of 43,000 some fellow citizens per year, every year, and have for quite a few years. Not that we don't feel for them, their families, and wish is wasn't so because we do. But, our lack of focus on it, our lack of overhauling the whole transportation system, by our lack of demanding cars be safer etc, we are in essence accepting that level of loss on a yearly basis. Saying we find that loss acceptable. So then I have to ask myself, why are the potential deaths of citizens from a potential terrorist attack unacceptable but 43,000 motor vehicle deaths are acceptable ? Why are we more focused on what might happen then on what is already happening on a daily basis ? Fear of the unknown? I don't have a good answer and I hate to consider that it does indeed boil down to fear !
Tom wrote (pg 77)...
“Without the ability to clearly represent the exact and true situation, to include all that is known and what things are unknown.”
I'd love a concrete example of this thinking because I'm thinking if it’s unknown how can you know…. How do you plan for unknowns? what am I missing here?
And Tom wrote..
“ A person who threatens has a different mind than one who builds a weapon that is a threat.” Tom can you tell us more ? How does this apply or not apply to Osama Bin Laden ?
I found the differentiation of WME and WMD to be useful. I agree with Tom he wrote( Pg 76) “Weapons of Mass Destruction was mentioned previously.Without semantics and assignment of specific definition, the term is used to describe everything from a minor amount of anthrax or nerve agent to the most powerful of nuclear weapons. The problem is that in current usage the term demands attention; attention which may not be warranted."
Tom wrote (pg 65)
“The intent of terrorism is specifically to inculcate fear in the target population and affect the psychology of the society.”
IMO, this point cannot be said enough. Every time we think about terrorism, hear of a potential threat, watch or read something about terrorism in the media, listen to the government or hear about an attack we need to remind ourselves of the “terrorist intent.” Especially considering what Tom wrote on pg 79
“Keep in mind, to move toward victory the terrorist does not have to kill people, he only needs to keep the target responding within the parameters and perception that the terrorist has created.
On pg 67 Tom wrote…
“The statement: “If this saves one life, it is worth the effort?” cannot be the national threshold.”
I think it’s salient point and I agree….and he wrote
“ because action and security may have to be deferred to ensure that the terrorist idea is being defeated.” Pg 74
and I was thinking yes, yet when I read pg 68 that “The Soviets lost 20 million…” “…..an acceptable threshold is not in the thousands –and may not even be in the tens of thousands”
I want to say forget it, I have difficulty saying Yes to that point, even though I know logically it should follow. I know we find 43,000 motor vehicle deaths a year to be an acceptable level, as we go with the plans we have in place to keep driving safe, we don't panic, and over haul the whole system or throw an inordinate amount of money in to attempting to making roads safer…( although maybe we should do more than we do. )
No, we accept that lost of 43,000 some fellow citizens per year, every year, and have for quite a few years. Not that we don't feel for them, their families, and wish is wasn't so because we do. But, our lack of focus on it, our lack of overhauling the whole transportation system, by our lack of demanding cars be safer etc, we are in essence accepting that level of loss on a yearly basis. Saying we find that loss acceptable. So then I have to ask myself, why are the potential deaths of citizens from a potential terrorist attack unacceptable but 43,000 motor vehicle deaths are acceptable ? Why are we more focused on what might happen then on what is already happening on a daily basis ? Fear of the unknown? I don't have a good answer and I hate to consider that it does indeed boil down to fear !
posted by Tom at 3:54 PM
9 comments
