| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a loaded question, phrased poorly, and does not reflect the reality of how such weapons get around or might be smuggled into the country. I would suggest you take some time to re-consider the question in light of the impracticality of carting a nuke or dirty bomb around, and as to which agencies actually are very much active in intel gathering on such devices, thus preventing their assembly or transport.
Trying to marry the issue of Mexican migrant workers with the job of the CIA, FBI, and other international agencies to stop terrorism, is basically just trolling to start a political fight.
Anybody else ever wonder, given the degree to which we refuse to adequately patrol the borders, just how easy it'd be to sneak a nuke, a dirty bomb, or a virus into the country?
No, I never have. Fortunately for us, so far, the only organization of psychopaths who have ever used a nuclear device on civilian populations has been the American government and we should be safe from them. At least, for a couple more days
Exactly how thoroughly would you have to search everyone comming over the border to fine either
1) A 1 mm vial of smallbox or
2) the injection site where his terrorist buddies said "here's your flu shot," injects with smallbox "go to grand central station every day and wait for instructions"
Only way to stop that sort of thing is to find them and shoot them before it gets to that point.
I removed a off-topic post.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yes. I wonder about it all day, every day. Sometimes it keeps me up at night as I wonder if the terrorists are hiding in my closet, particularly given the proximity of my house to the border and my inadequate home security system.
I find that washing my hands 4-5 times per hour and constantly checking the closet door helps me relax and not wonder so much.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure we can find something more effective to do than wash our hands 4-5 times a day.
Is any thing we do going to be 100% effective? No. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything? If you answer 'yes', then I have to assume that (given that no security system is 100% effective), you believe we should get rid of police, anti-viruses, and locks on our doors.
I completely agree. Instead, we could give everyone a voucher for a gun. No need for police - everyone can dispense their own justice.
|
The truth of the matter is, if a person of group is determined enough, no amount of "security" will keep them from trying and in some instances succeeding.
A nuke? Sure, it's possible. Not a multi-megaton device, but I'm sure it would be possible to smuggle in a 1 kiloton device (it would be small and person transportable). Dirty bomb? You could most likely get everything you need within the borders of the US rather than having to smuggle it in. Virus? BNW hit it on the head with his assessment.
Are these scenarios preventable? Not by "securing" borders (short of denying all travel in and out of a country and keeping the land and water borders completely locked down ... expensive and still not 100%). Kind of destroys the "land of the free" concept.
Increased intelligence? Not likely. Bad intelligence is a killer of people and freedoms. If you do not care about freedoms or deaths, then maybe, but still unlikely .. .and the "land of the free" dies along with it.
Truth is a subject like this is not going to be solved by "if we do x, it will solve the potential issue". A better question is: if folks are concerned about scenarios like this, what would be the best way to limit the probability of such a scenario from playing out while still retaining civil liberties and not destroying the international perception of the country in the process?
EDIT: An even better question is: Should one get completely stressed about a possible situation about which one could not personally have any control? If the answer is 'yes', how do you handle the possibility of natural disasters and are you in a constant state of stress because so much is outside of your direct control?
|
|
zylphryx, could you explain where you got the idea that -anybody- in this thread claimed that "if we do X, it'll 100% prevent anything bad from happening"?
I never said anyone did. However, the way the initial query was phrased, it does seem to imply that if we "adequately patrol the borders" that would negate the scenarios that you listed.
Good idea! We should wait until AFTER a terrorist group sets off a nuke before we think about ways to keep it from happening.Anybody else ever wonder, given the degree to which we refuse to adequately patrol the borders, just how easy it'd be to sneak a nuke, a dirty bomb, or a virus into the country?No, I never have. Fortunately for us, so far, the only organization of psychopaths who have ever used a nuclear device on civilian populations has been the American government and we should be safe from them. At least, for a couple more days
Sigh... Didn't I mention some of the agencies involved in keeping it from happening?
Many, many countries, including the US, Canada and Mexico, spend enormous resources preventing those things from happening.
Again, I think it would help you to find out how dirty bombs and nukes are built, where the materials come from, how they are tracked, etc. Then you need to gather a little more information on the various agencies patrolling the world's productions of such things. You can't build a force field around the country that will automatically sizzle nukes to dust, so you have to rely on intel and small strike teams, and occasional military action. All of which we have at large and active in large numbers.
Look, nobody is totally happy with things. Somebody's always going to say not enough is being done. But give these agencies a break. Their families live here too, and I am sure they do the best they can.
|
|
Not negate it, but certainly reduce the possibility of it happening.zylphryx, could you explain where you got the idea that -anybody- in this thread claimed that "if we do X, it'll 100% prevent anything bad from happening"?I never said anyone did. However, the way the initial query was phrased, it does seem to imply that if we "adequately patrol the borders" that would negate the scenarios that you listed.
True, it can reduce the chance, but then you also have to ask what the offset cost is? If we increase the patrolling of the borders, we could reduce some avenues of transfer for some of the scenarios listed.
In order to shut down other avenues, increased examination of shipments of all goods coming into the country would reduce additional avenues. Still not overly intrusive, but there are still other venues for transfer.
Detailed body searches of people entering the country would help reduce the potential even further. Closing the borders and becoming a completely isolationist nation would reduce it even more.
Monitoring all activities of everyone within the borders of the country reduces the odds further yet.
At what point does the price of security become too great?
Even if we put the limit at increased patrolling of the borders and increased examination of shipments coming into the country, it does not cut off the main vector of biological attack. Bio-warfare is another creature entirely. It just takes one fanatic (or even one unknowing participant) to be infected with a virulent bug to cause havoc. If the agent used has an incubation time greater than the time required to travel to the end destination, there is no effective means of reducing the probablity without becoming extremely intrusive.
The US, Canada, and Mexico have forces who work to keep large scale terrorist attacks from happening. I hope that you're not seriously claiming that that means that large scale terrorist attacks can't happen.Good idea! We should wait until AFTER a terrorist group sets off a nuke before we think about ways to keep it from happening.Anybody else ever wonder, given the degree to which we refuse to adequately patrol the borders, just how easy it'd be to sneak a nuke, a dirty bomb, or a virus into the country?No, I never have. Fortunately for us, so far, the only organization of psychopaths who have ever used a nuclear device on civilian populations has been the American government and we should be safe from them. At least, for a couple more daysSigh... Didn't I mention some of the agencies involved in keeping it from happening?
Many, many countries, including the US, Canada and Mexico, spend enormous resources preventing those things from happening.
Again, I think it would help you to find out how dirty bombs and nukes are built, where the materials come from, how they are tracked, etc. Then you need to gather a little more information on the various agencies patrolling the world's productions of such things. You can't build a force field around the country that will automatically sizzle nukes to dust, so you have to rely on intel and small strike teams, and occasional military action. All of which we have at large and active in large numbers.
Look, nobody is totally happy with things. Somebody's always going to say not enough is being done. But give these agencies a break. Their families live here too, and I am sure they do the best they can.
As a matter of fact, I do not believe that any entity can ever completely prepare for any and all eventualities.
But I think you're contradicting yourself now. You started out barking that more needs to be done. Now you seem to be saying that such attacks are probably inevitable anyway. So you no longer have a point, and we can stop this now, correct?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a loaded question, phrased poorly, and does not reflect the reality of how such weapons get around or might be smuggled into the country. I would suggest you take some time to re-consider the question in light of the impracticality of carting a nuke or dirty bomb around, and as to which agencies actually are very much active in intel gathering on such devices, thus preventing their assembly or transport.
Trying to marry the issue of Mexican migrant workers with the job of the CIA, FBI, and other international agencies to stop terrorism, is basically just trolling to start a political fight.
The Canadian boarder is twice as long as the Mexican boarder and is less patrolled. Why do you automatically imply that the OP is talking about dangerous materials being smuggled in from Mexico and not from Canada?
I completely agree. Instead, we could give everyone a voucher for a gun. No need for police - everyone can dispense their own justice.I'm pretty sure we can find something more effective to do than wash our hands 4-5 times a day.
Is any thing we do going to be 100% effective? No. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything? If you answer 'yes', then I have to assume that (given that no security system is 100% effective), you believe we should get rid of police, anti-viruses, and locks on our doors.
Just shoot anyone that doesn't look like you or think like you and all the worlds problems are solved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good idea! We should wait until AFTER a terrorist group sets off a nuke before we think about ways to keep it from happening.
Hmmm. I don't think I suggested that at all. I think what I tried to suggest was that, given their historic track record, the US government are the biggest terrorists on the planet and after January somethingth, they're going to come to your house and get you.
The Canadian boarder is twice as long as the Mexican boarder and is less patrolled. Why do you automatically imply that the OP is talking about dangerous materials being smuggled in from Mexico and not from Canada?
Because Canada is about as good at keeping things out of its borders as we are, while in Mexico you can bribe the right cartel with a few grand to bring in a herd of ebola laden elephants and a trebuchet big enough to launch them into santa fe.
Saying that we need to do more to prevent attacks from happening, but that nothing we do will prevent all attacks isn't contradicting myself.
To demonstrate how little sense you're making now, imagine that I'd said that we should ensure that our fire detectors in our homes have good batteries, but added that doing that wouldn't protect all lives.
Should I say turnabout is fair play? Or should I just be rude and point out who's really mincing words and playing the context game?
You directly stated that our government "refuses" to "adequately patrol our borders." You implied that this makes nukes, dirty bombs and germ warfare more likely. Note: you said they "refuse to adequately patrol" - those were YOUR words.
I advised you should learn more about how those items are handled, that it wasn't as easy or black and white as you seem to indicate, and I said that there are many government agencies at large doing their best to protect us from those things. I said "give [them] a break," and I am "sure they are doing their best."
You then stated that - and I quote - "The US, Canada, and Mexico have forces who work to keep large scale terrorist attacks from happening." That would seem to contradict your previous insistence that our government "refuses" to protect our borders.
You then tried to turn my words back on me, misquoting me by saying you hope I'm "not seriously [claiming]" that "large scale terrorist attacks can't happen," presumably "just because" the government is trying to keep attacks from happening. Well, firstly, I don't know what kind of tortured world of logic you hail from, but in my world "doing their best" is never a guarantee.
However, if you notice, you went from saying that the government "refuses" to adequately protect the borders to saying something along the lines of just because they do, doesn't mean doing so works.
So what's your point? Are we well protected, or not? Will it work, or no? Is there anything more that can be done, or is the fact that you can't guard against everything somehow "evidence" that nobody is doing anything? Because at this point, your logic is everywhere across the board, and I haven't seen a recommendation or solution from you at all.
The Canadian boarder is twice as long as the Mexican boarder and is less patrolled. Why do you automatically imply that the OP is talking about dangerous materials being smuggled in from Mexico and not from Canada?Because Canada is about as good at keeping things out of its borders as we are, while in Mexico you can bribe the right cartel with a few grand to bring in a herd of ebola laden elephants and a trebuchet big enough to launch them into santa fe.
That attitude is why it's easier to smuggle high powered firearms from Canada into Montana and N Dakota that it is to smuggle 20 people from Mexico to Arizona. Drugs and weapons are being smuggled in from Canada, though not as much as Mexico, it is easier to bring large amounts of radioactive materials from Canada than Mexico. It can be done simply because we don't believe that its possible so we don't check.
The Canadian boarder is twice as long as the Mexican boarder and is less patrolled. Why do you automatically imply that the OP is talking about dangerous materials being smuggled in from Mexico and not from Canada?It's a loaded question, phrased poorly, and does not reflect the reality of how such weapons get around or might be smuggled into the country. I would suggest you take some time to re-consider the question in light of the impracticality of carting a nuke or dirty bomb around, and as to which agencies actually are very much active in intel gathering on such devices, thus preventing their assembly or transport.
Trying to marry the issue of Mexican migrant workers with the job of the CIA, FBI, and other international agencies to stop terrorism, is basically just trolling to start a political fight.
You're right in that I jumped to that conclusion merely because the southern border is a contentious issue in this country right now. But then again, nobody ever complains about our government inadequately patrolling the Canadian border. It's just not a hot topic issue. In my defense, given the blunt language of the OP, I think I can be forgiven for my assumption.
That attitude is why it's easier to smuggle high powered firearms from Canada into Montana and N Dakota that it is to smuggle 20 people from Mexico to Arizona. Drugs and weapons are being smuggled in from Canada, though not as much as Mexico, it is easier to bring large amounts of radioactive materials from Canada than Mexico. It can be done simply because we don't believe that its possible so we don't check.The Canadian boarder is twice as long as the Mexican boarder and is less patrolled. Why do you automatically imply that the OP is talking about dangerous materials being smuggled in from Mexico and not from Canada?Because Canada is about as good at keeping things out of its borders as we are, while in Mexico you can bribe the right cartel with a few grand to bring in a herd of ebola laden elephants and a trebuchet big enough to launch them into santa fe.
I would agree that there is less scrutiny across the northern border. I said as much in my post previous to this.
However, all of this implies that the Canadian government does not work with ours to track down where radioactive materials are going, where shipments of dangerous materials have gone, etc., not only to keep them out of our country, but out of their own country in the first place.
Which was the point of my original response to the OP. There's only so much you can do to guard an invisible line on a map. That's why the various intelligence agencies concentrate on tracking the raw materials and the terrorists themselves before either can GET TO Canada, the US, or Mexico. Obviously, intelligence can fail, but having a man posted every ten feet on a wall stretching from sea to shining sea while soldiers tear apart the cushions of every vehicle passing through is a bigger, even less practical fail.
Yes. I wonder about it all day, every day. Sometimes it keeps me up at night as I wonder if the terrorists are hiding in my closet, particularly given the proximity of my house to the border and my inadequate home security system.
I find that washing my hands 4-5 times per hour and constantly checking the closet door helps me relax and not wonder so much.
I wonder if the Reds under your bed keep the Terrorists in the closet company....
Please just lock this ridiculous thread now and save me the time of hiding it.
FYI: Clicking the "hide thread" button takes less time than writing a post asking the moderators to close a thread.
Every person has one life. Every such life is going to end, one way or another. The relevant question is not "how many people will die if X happens?" but "what kind of lives will people have before they die?" Yes, a nuke will kill lots of people. To each one, that then will be it. On a personal level, it doesn't much matter if it's by bomb or by gun of by lightning. Yes, we all want to live forever... But none of us will.
Personally, I would much prefer living my life in a non authoritarian state, even if it means I could die tomorrow without warning... Because that is already the fact of things, no matter how authoritarian society is.
LilithsThrall wrote:
I'm pretty sure we can find something more effective to do than wash our hands 4-5 times a day.Is any thing we do going to be 100% effective? No. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything? If you answer 'yes', then I have to assume that (given that no security system is 100% effective), you believe we should get rid of police, anti-viruses, and locks on our doors.
I completely agree. Instead, we could give everyone a voucher for a gun. No need for police - everyone can dispense their own justice.
30 years ago, back in high school, I proposed a plan where each American was issued a hand grenade.
The theory was you would use it to protect yourself.If you did use it, your actions would go before a review board.
If they OK'd your use as justified (and you had survived), you would be given another one.
Somehow, this plan never caught on.
Makes you wonder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please just lock this ridiculous thread now and save me the time of hiding it.
FYI: Clicking the "hide thread" button takes less time than writing a post asking the moderators to close a thread.Ironic, huh?
...
...
...
...huh?
Ow! Burned by the snark. I wonder if I should sit here and suffer the humiliation, or else, write a letter to the moderators...
"Dear Paizoboard Moderators,
Citizen Turner wields his irony like a sword somewhere in between the vicinity of an e.e. cummings and an Alanis Morrissette. It burns, Citizen Turner's snark does! Could you please lock this thread?"
My apologies. Never, NEVER!, should a good flamewar lead to alcohol abuse. My bad.
:)
I completely agree. Instead, we could give everyone a voucher for a gun. No need for police - everyone can dispense their own justice.
Are you sure you're not from Texas?
Sissyl, that's a pretty good point. But isn't there value in adding years to a life (most lives anyway - not wanting to get into an argument over those lives for whom an extra year of life is an extra year of pain)?Every person has one life. Every such life is going to end, one way or another. The relevant question is not "how many people will die if X happens?" but "what kind of lives will people have before they die?" Yes, a nuke will kill lots of people. To each one, that then will be it. On a personal level, it doesn't much matter if it's by bomb or by gun of by lightning. Yes, we all want to live forever... But none of us will.
Personally, I would much prefer living my life in a non authoritarian state, even if it means I could die tomorrow without warning... Because that is already the fact of things, no matter how authoritarian society is.
Years of life are like money, there are always holes to put them if you do get them. Sure, there is value (also not wanting the painful years argument), but it is entirely the wrong way of looking at things. Ask yourself - if you were going to diein three months, and you knew you were, would you live your life much differently? For this discussion, assume you could not take out huge loans and not repay, you were stuck with the same resources you have now. I suspect many people would say some things to some people, maybe take a vacation for a while, or travel somewhere for a little. When push comes to shove, we live much as we do because we WANT to live that way.
As a consequence, no, you would not live differently if a nuke could kill you at any moment. Consider the eighties, everyone was acutely aware that nuclear war could happen with no warning. And if you would not change your life for living under such a threat, then maybe it is having a good life while you have it that is important?
Of course, it very much matters what kind of danger we perceive. If we have to dodge muggings and watch our loved ones be murdered for a piece of bread, that is certainlynot okay. We want the normal day to day life to berelatively safe, but the exceptional will always happen. The politicians know they can't protect you and yours from violence, natural disasters or the like, but that doesn'tprevent them from promising to do so... If you only give up your liberty and give them the power they need to protect you.
Getting killed in a terrorist attack is about as likely as getting hit by lightning... Twice. Rare events work like that. Nobody can protect you.
Given this, the only reasonable decision is to live as you wish, and accept that there is a small risk of death from terrorism for you and your loved ones.
That attitude is why it's easier to smuggle high powered firearms from Canada into Montana and N Dakota than it is to smuggle 20 people from Mexico to Arizona.
Well smuggling guns is a lot easier than smuggling people. You really don't need to poke air holes in the box to smuggle the guns, so i don't think thats a fair comparison.
Also, whats legal or easy to get in canada (firearm wise) that isn't legal in the US? Its like smuggling tea into china.
Drugs and weapons are being smuggled in from Canada, though not as much as Mexico, it is easier to bring large amounts of radioactive materials from Canada than Mexico. It can be done simply because we don't believe that its possible so we don't check.
Its no harder to get that stuff in canada than it is to get in the US.