[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.