Preventing the fictional 9/11/07 scenario Tuesday, Nov 28 2006
risks 3:47 pm
Since the “Fact or Fiction” story generated so much indignation, here I’ll describe what I think could be done to negate the threat described.
For the ebola virus, I remember some article in the SF Chronicle about fish being used as bio-terror detectors for city water supplies. So I type “fish water supply terror” into Google, and sure enough, bluegill fish are being used to detect dangerous chemicals in the water supplies of San Francisco, New York, and Washington because they are better than the best artificial sensors. However, it seems they don’t respond to bacteria, or perhaps not viruses… luckily, there was recently a news item about a super-improved virus detector, that can detect a virus in seconds. I assume that we are starting to use them to observe our municipal water supplies more carefully nowadays. With more technology, maintaining security will become easier, as long as the white hats stay ahead of the black hats. As Brian Wang also mentioned in the comments, we need to improve our intelligence. Luckily, bio-terror is a high-profile terrorist risk, like conventional explosives, and most cops are probably trained on what to do in the event that an outbreak occurs - quarantining, etc.
For nuclear weapons, there are very effective uranium detectors nowadays, that can sense uranium through crates even. Thanks to post 9-11 vigilance, we can hope that an atomic bomb won’t make it into the country. For nonproliferation activities, I recommend “Preventing Nuclear Terrorism” by Matthew Bunn. Apparently the President isn’t doing enough. We need to get enriched uranium out of sensitive sites overseas with inadequate security. Also, to eliminate the cheap enrichment of uranium in the future, it might be a good idea to ban nanofactories, or at least be absolutely sure that no desktop manufacturing appliance can be used to create any device that enriches uranium, or breeds it. We need to switch over to solar, fusion, and ‘denatured’ thorium energy sources as soon as possible.
Unrelated: fascinating post by Paul Gowder from Overcoming Bias.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
An interesting related discussion is:
from Open the Future
discussing John Mueller article from Foreign Affairs: what if there’s no longer any substantive threat from al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups?
A fully credible explanation for the fact that the United States has suffered no terrorist attacks since 9/11 is that the threat posed by homegrown or imported terrorists — like that presented by Japanese Americans during World War II or by American Communists after it — has been massively exaggerated. Is it possible that the haystack is essentially free of needles? […]
Intelligence estimates in 2002 held that there were as many as 5,000 al Qaeda terrorists and supporters in the United States. However, a secret FBI report in 2005 wistfully noted that although the bureau had managed to arrest a few bad guys here and there after more than three years of intense and well-funded hunting, it had been unable to identify a single true al Qaeda sleeper cell anywhere in the country.
This is, in effect, the “Fermi’s Paradox” argument for terrorism.
Mueller makes some strong points about the meaning of the lack of al Qaeda (or related) activity in the US in the years since 9/11, as well as the lack of evidence of al Qaeda (etc.) groups even existing in the US. And while high-profile events like the bombings in Madrid and London remain seared into our consciousness, the reality is that they are one-off events. Mueller further argues that these high-profile attacks are signs of al Qaeda’s (and so forth) weakness, not strength.
…Still, it’s clear that AQ (etc.) are nowhere near as pervasive and dangerous as they were described in the months and years following 9/11.
>Some other explainations are that the terrorists are not trying for another big hit at the US because it would not produce the desired result. Hitting Spain produced a desired result. Hitting the US big again would shift a few more percentages back to Bush and result in more blowback for Syria and Iran who are backing a lot of this.
A lot of Al Qaeda are in the Middle East. In Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc…
November 28th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Bush claimed that something like 10 terrorist plots have been foiled in the last few years, but of course, they may be poorly funded jokes, but who knows… there was a plot to blow a subway tunnel in NYC. If I were taking that tunnel, I would sure feel thankful to the plot was foiled…
November 28th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Erm, actually, it turns out that the subway plot was simply made up (http://www.1010wins.com/pages/62861.php?contentType=4&contentId=180102).
And borated paraffin (available online at http://www.unitednuclear.com/paraffin.htm) makes an excellent neutron blocker, and there’s plenty of room in cargo containers.
“Intelligence estimates in 2002 held that there were as many as 5,000 al Qaeda terrorists and supporters in the United States.”
Yes, same good old fashioned intelligence that has proven to be a spectacular failure (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3883605.stm). Remember Iraq’s “mobile biowar labs”?
“the United States has suffered no terrorist attacks since 9/11″
Right. Except for those anthrax letters that were mailed out.
“Some other explainations are that the terrorists are not trying for another big hit at the US because it would not produce the desired result.”
Okay, some of the results of 9/11:
- Afghanistan gets invaded.
- Iraq gets invaded.
- Bush’s popularity soars.
- The US now has 200,000-odd troops in the Middle East.
- A lot of people over here dislike all Muslims.
How is any of this “desirable”?
November 28th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Wow, thanks for all the info Tom, very interesting.
Jamais Cascio - why not join the more pessimistic camp? It seems to more accurately reflect reality. SIAI, CRN, and Lifeboat were all formed on the premise that our earth is in serious danger, and everyone behind these organizations is passionate because they “hear the clock ticking” as Eliezer would say.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:12 am
Actually, these small terrorist threats have nothing to do with existential risk. In the future as technology progresses terrorist threats will become more serious.. Remember that each year more than a million lives is lost in car accidents.
And it’s funny how you can take seriously a internet rumor about terrorist attack in this scale.
Maybe the biggest threat is triggering a nuclear war, which would be fault of the USA. You should get rid of your nuclear weapons and the risk to global nuclear war would diminish. Your perspective of preventing nuclear attacks to USA and being a world police seems typical for an American.