[ars]

You are confusing the result of the thing with the thing.

Terrorism is not a big problem because we work so hard to fight against it. You've confused that with not being a big problem in the first place. (It's like Y2K - it wasn't a big problem because we made such a big deal out of it and everything got fixed.)

And detecting a hidden nuke coming into the country is not the same thing as looking for nukes from other countries.

In one case you watch the country, in the other you watch your borders.

[flyinRyan]

>Terrorism is not a big problem because we work so hard to fight against it.

Citation needed. The government has yet to stop a single terrorist plot. The only ones they claim they've stopped are very clear entrapment cases that never would have amounted to anything without the government supplying the motivations and the supplies.

Every time a terrorist has actually tried an attack they've either succeed or screwed up all by themselves. The reason terrorism is not a big problem for the US is because terrorists nearly never attack the US.

[ars]

> The government has yet to stop a single terrorist plot.

The world isn't an action movie where the hero stops the terrorist by cutting the wire on the bomb at the last minute.

An attack is stopped way way earlier in the process, where there is much less drama.

It gives a perverse incentive actually: Wait till the attack gets really big and obvious before stopping it, just so you can get some good press. I hope they never give in to this.

[flyinRyan]

We have no evidence that even one plot has been stopped. The plots they show us that they have stopped are clear cases of entrapment. So why would you assume that some great work is going on behind the scenes given these two bits of evidence?

But it's amusing you bring up action movies since you clearly believe them. The reason we're not constantly getting attacked is because no one is attacking us.

[mikeash]

I'm not confusing anything. Please read what I'm saying rather than relying on your projection of what you think I think.

I'm well aware of the possibility that terrorism is rare because it's so heavily fought. I just don't see any reason to think that's actually the case.

Yes, terrorism could be like Y2K, in that it's a big problem that's averted through lots of hard work. It just doesn't look that way to me. Instead, it looks like a small problem that has tremendous resources devoted to it for no good reason.

Consider the following facts:

1. Terrorist attacks are pretty easy to carry out. Any motivated HNer could easily plan and execute an attack, on a programmer's salary, that would outshine the Boston bombings. (Something like 9/11 is obviously harder. But there's plenty of low-hanging fruit.)

2. Doing the above without getting caught is still pretty easy. There's essentially nothing in place to catch the "lone wolf".

3. Despite #1 and #2, terrorist attacks remain extremely rare.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that there are very few people who are actually motivated to carry out attacks. It's nothing to do with enforcement, it's simply that most people don't actually want to go out and kill a bunch of innocents.

As for detecting nukes, why do you think that smuggling a warhead into the US is a technique reserved for terrorists? There's nothing that says Russia or China or North Korea couldn't do it. They probably won't, but it's enough of a threat to be worth guarding against.

[ars]

You setup a strawman: "Small attacks are easy, and we don't (can't) defend against them, therefor no one wants to do small attacks."

Conclusion: Don't defend against large attacks.

But your strawman ignores that people do actually want to carry out large attacks, but they are harder to do, and get caught easier, so they happen less. That doesn't mean we should not defend against them.

(And obviously "most" people don't want to kill innocents. There are those that do however.)

> There's nothing that says Russia or China or North Korea couldn't do it. They probably won't, but it's enough of a threat to be worth guarding against.

Of course they "could". But why? It wouldn't gain them anything, so they won't bother. Like I said: For attacks by a country watch that country, not the border. i.e. look for the motivations.

(I suppose Iran might bother, if they could. But they'd probably do it by proxy, i.e. terrorist.)

[mikeash]

I don't think that's what a "straw man" is. I didn't make up something that I claimed was your position and then attacked it.

My argument doesn't ignore these things, I simply disagree with you. I really wish we could have these discussions without people constantly telling me that I'm "ignoring" things when they find points they disagree with. I mean, I'm not an idiot. Obviously people want to carry out large attacks, as evidenced by the fact that they have.

However, the available evidence leads me to believe that people also want to carry out small attacks. The vast majority of terrorism worldwide is small attacks, and this is true no matter what the security situation in the region is. Most terrorism is individuals blowing themselves up on busses or similar, regardless of whether it's in a surveillance state or an anarchy or anything in between.

Thus, a relatively small number of small attacks implies a relatively smaller number of large attacks. The numbers are such that I don't see it being worth defending against at anything like the level we're currently doing.

As for nuclear smuggling by states, the obvious reason would be to use it as a first strike. Decapitate the enemy's command and control by detonating a warhead in their capital with no advance warning, then clean up the rest.

Yes, they probably don't want to carry out a first strike. But part of that lack of desire comes from our deterrence, and part of that deterrence comes from being able to carry out a retaliatory strike, and part of that comes from having advance warning of the initial strike.

[ars]

> I don't think that's what a "straw man" is. I didn't make up something that I claimed was your position and then attacked it.

Yes you did. You claimed the argument was about small attacks, which it isn't.

> Thus, a relatively small number of small attacks implies a relatively smaller number of large attacks.

You have no basis for this belief. And in fact I think it's exactly the opposite. Small attacks aren't worth it (to the terrorist).

The "cost" to a terrorist is a human (the terrorist), either dying or getting caught. Same cost for both types of attack.

So a large attack gives a bigger "bang for the buck" for equal cost, and is thus more desirable.

> the obvious reason would be to use it as a first strike.

So, again, watch the country, not the border. See if the country is interested in a first strike. These types of attacks don't come out of nowhere.