From Ecstasy to Tragedy
As you've all heard by now, London was in the midst of a huge high from celebrating its selection as host city of the 2012 Olympics when 4 terrorist bombs, coordinated within minutes of each other, exploded on subway cars and double-decker buses throughout the city.
I don't know how many people you know in London, but I have a lot of coworkers out there with whom I am close friends, and I was relieved to hear that they are all fine. It's also very fortunate that Hubert wasn't slated to visit our London office until next week. Is that trip still on? I'd have to think it‘ll be postponed.
To me, the most revealing thing about these attacks is the heightened security around the nation that inevitably follows. It tells me that we respond impulsively and in an arbitrary manner to something that requires greater precision, simply because we feel the need to assure the people that we are doing something, even if it's not needed and actually serves to just increase the level of anxiety. And in cases where we actually need the heightened security, it's glaring that our signal to be on high alert was an attack that was already carried out in another country. What does that say about our security beforehand, and our vulnerability to attack then? I'm not knocking it, because I don't think it's feasible to sustain top level security everywhere that it is needed on an ongoing basis, nor would I want it. But it highlights the largely reactive nature of combating terrorism that can leave one feeling helpless.
For instance, some stadiums around the country just put metal detectors in place today, in response to the attack. That begs the question, why weren’t they in place beforehand, and should they now be installed at every site that hosts a large gathering of people? Without them, what’s to stop someone from walking in with a bomb? Once they are in place, what’s to stop someone from walking in with a non-metal weapon? Should we frisk everyone and use x-ray machines and specially-trained dogs, too? Imagine going through the airport process every time you went to a sporting event or concert, jumped on the subway or bus, visited Disneyland, watched a movie, or ate at a popular restaurant. No way would the country accept that level of security. But if we aren't willing to take things that far, then realistically we can only react to these situations, and by then it's too late.
The fact is, metal detectors make very little difference anyway, except in the way things are done. But action had to be taken, right? It's all show. Combating terrorism is like combating steroids. Stop one tactic, a new one is developed. Stop that one, and yet another comes along. We’re constantly playing catch up. Our only proactive weapon is intelligence, and while that makes a bigger difference than we ever hear about (or would want to know about, for that matter), it’s probably not going to stop something as simple as a suicide bomber walking into a diner or bus or school or office building.
So should we obsess about this constant threat and live in perpetual fear? Absolutely not. But I do find it ironic that the increase in security that was intended to reassure me just served to make me more insecure, not less, by conjuring all kinds of questions I'd rather not think about, and probably don't need to ask.
Nonetheless, I look forward to visiting London someday. I'm told that it's an amazing city, and with the upcoming renovations to prepare it for the Olympics, it can only get better. On to happier days.
I don't know how many people you know in London, but I have a lot of coworkers out there with whom I am close friends, and I was relieved to hear that they are all fine. It's also very fortunate that Hubert wasn't slated to visit our London office until next week. Is that trip still on? I'd have to think it‘ll be postponed.
To me, the most revealing thing about these attacks is the heightened security around the nation that inevitably follows. It tells me that we respond impulsively and in an arbitrary manner to something that requires greater precision, simply because we feel the need to assure the people that we are doing something, even if it's not needed and actually serves to just increase the level of anxiety. And in cases where we actually need the heightened security, it's glaring that our signal to be on high alert was an attack that was already carried out in another country. What does that say about our security beforehand, and our vulnerability to attack then? I'm not knocking it, because I don't think it's feasible to sustain top level security everywhere that it is needed on an ongoing basis, nor would I want it. But it highlights the largely reactive nature of combating terrorism that can leave one feeling helpless.
For instance, some stadiums around the country just put metal detectors in place today, in response to the attack. That begs the question, why weren’t they in place beforehand, and should they now be installed at every site that hosts a large gathering of people? Without them, what’s to stop someone from walking in with a bomb? Once they are in place, what’s to stop someone from walking in with a non-metal weapon? Should we frisk everyone and use x-ray machines and specially-trained dogs, too? Imagine going through the airport process every time you went to a sporting event or concert, jumped on the subway or bus, visited Disneyland, watched a movie, or ate at a popular restaurant. No way would the country accept that level of security. But if we aren't willing to take things that far, then realistically we can only react to these situations, and by then it's too late.
The fact is, metal detectors make very little difference anyway, except in the way things are done. But action had to be taken, right? It's all show. Combating terrorism is like combating steroids. Stop one tactic, a new one is developed. Stop that one, and yet another comes along. We’re constantly playing catch up. Our only proactive weapon is intelligence, and while that makes a bigger difference than we ever hear about (or would want to know about, for that matter), it’s probably not going to stop something as simple as a suicide bomber walking into a diner or bus or school or office building.
So should we obsess about this constant threat and live in perpetual fear? Absolutely not. But I do find it ironic that the increase in security that was intended to reassure me just served to make me more insecure, not less, by conjuring all kinds of questions I'd rather not think about, and probably don't need to ask.
Nonetheless, I look forward to visiting London someday. I'm told that it's an amazing city, and with the upcoming renovations to prepare it for the Olympics, it can only get better. On to happier days.
posted by Chang Kim at Friday, July 08, 2005
4 Comments:
the london trip is still on, as far as i know, so hopefully things will be okay.. from hawaii to london in three days.
the whole terrorism thing is akin to some very intelligent line of reasoning i heard at some point (but now clearly cannot remember the details of) from a high school history teacher of countries getting demolished in wars because they're always fighting the previous war. like preparing for WWII as if it's a trench war when there are now tanks or fighting vietnam like a conventional war when it's clearly a different fight.
read a good article about this from google news... bizarre that we spend 90% of the transportation security budget on airfare when there are 16x the number of daily passengers on public transport and the majority of other terrorist attacks happen on public transport. linkage.
As someone who was just vacationing in London about 3 weeks ago, and who rode through the Edgware Road tube station multiple times on the way to and from my hotel, let me say that London is an amazing city, and I would go back in a heartbeat.
To those who are so concerned about terrorism that you are considering changing the way you live your lives, may I recommend moving to Wyoming, where according the
New York Times, the Homeland Security department distributed about 7 times more money per capita last year than in New York.
Or perhaps Lake County, Tennessee, population 7900, which received $183,000 in Homeland Security money, according to
60 Minutes.
I think I get more upset about how little our federal government truly cares about effective, sane security than I get about the terrorist attacks themselves.
Yep, the arbitrary and imprecise nature of our approach is mind-boggling and infuriating.
The data on public transportation, spending in Wyoming...all great stuff. Thanks for providing the numbers to help illustrate my point.
Hubert, I'm sure you'll be fine in London, and I hope to go there with Gina sometime when we complete our European tour, but things still seem a bit chaotic over there, so I figured they would choose to postpone. You're still a lucky bastard for getting to go, and for free!
Dan, why don't you have a blog? I look forward to hearing about your trip during SHHNHB 2. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home