Re: Net and Terrorism.

At 6:58 AM 7/2/96, snow wrote:

>T.C. May wrote:
>
>Can anything be done? To stop the likely effects of lots more
>surface-to-air missiles, lots more nerve gas available on the black market,
>and so on?
>
>In a word, "no."
>/*
>     I disagree. Terrorism, political terrorism is fear. There are ways to
>protect military targets that are quite cost effective, unfortunately they
>are politically unpopular. (What just happend in Saudi is on my mind.
>STUPID military commanders getting the same pie in the face time and time
>again. There is NOTHING so unchanging as the military mind set.)

Well, attacks on military targets are almost, by definition, not
"terrorism." (I'll spare the list a debate about the semantics; U.S.
journalists tend to refer to anything done to "us" as "terrorism," whether
the target is military or civilian.)

The focus of my comments was really on civilian or non-military targets.
(Including destruction of government buildings, maybe. I'm not sure whether
the Oklahoma City bombing and the recent Phoenix/Viper Militia case is
"terrorism" in a formal sense, or counter-government action, but my point
is that such things are likely to be happen.)

>Civilian targets are harder to protect, but certain steps can be
>taken to lessen chances of a sucessful attack.

Sure, any particular "soft target" can be hardened to some extent. But not
all of them, and even harder sites can be reached. This is left as an
exercise for the reader.

(Hint: The Japanese cult's Sarin gas attack on the subways...there are tens
of thousands of comparable targets in the U.S. alone. Look around, and ask
what it would take to harden each one. A minor cryptographic connection is
that hardening N of M sites makes the remaining M - N sites all the more
tempting.)

>Another method, and this would be very unpopular (and
>hypocritical of the US) would be simply to announce that we (the Country)
>are going to hold the _manufacturing_ nation responcible for the use of
>weapons of mass destruction. So if Soviet Nerve Gas is used, we gas a
>city in the Soviet Union. MAD carried to a lower level.

You are essentially making my point, that the biggest danger of the current
responses to terrorism is that nations will turn to national terrorism and
police state tactics.


>A third option is quite simply to buy as much of it as possible.

No, wouldn't work. As with the "War on (Some) Drugs," all this does is
raise the price a bit, actually making it a more tempting market for many
to get into.

(And various CBW agents are incredibly cheap to make, with the precursors
available in common products. How ya gonna buy up all the peach pits, for
example? Or "buy up" all the fertilizer and fuel oil?)

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> At 6:58 AM 7/2/96, snow wrote:
> >T.C. May wrote:
> >Can anything be done? To stop the likely effects of lots more
> >surface-to-air missiles, lots more nerve gas available on the black market,
> >and so on?
> >In a word, "no."
> >/*
> >     I disagree. Terrorism, political terrorism is fear. There are ways to
> >protect military targets that are quite cost effective, unfortunately they
> >are politically unpopular. (What just happend in Saudi is on my mind.
> >STUPID military commanders getting the same pie in the face time and time
> >again. There is NOTHING so unchanging as the military mind set.)
> 
> Well, attacks on military targets are almost, by definition, not
> "terrorism." (I'll spare the list a debate about the semantics; U.S.
> journalists tend to refer to anything done to "us" as "terrorism," whether
> the target is military or civilian.)

     I think a clear line can be established between terrorist
incidents and battles/fights/raids/attacks carried out by other
"legitimate" troops or guerilla fighters. 

     Military troops can best be protected by 3 seperate methods:

    1)  Don't put them in situations were they are targets for terrorism 
        abroad. Soldiers and Marines exist to elivate the ENEMIES body
        counts, not ours. By putting troops trained to fight in defensive 
        passive positions you are exposing them to terrorist attacks, and 
        ruining their combat reflexes. 

     2) When they _are_ exposed, let them fight the fuck back. Rules of 
        engagment are simple. When fired on, shoot to kill. If the shot 
        comes from a building, take out the building. If from a crowd, 
        well, do you best, but _get the shooter_. 
 
     3) Again when operating in a potentially deadly enviroment, follow the
        standard anti-terrorist rules. Vary your routines, don't bunch up,
        Be unpredictable. None of these were done in the Saudi blast, Nor 
        where they done in Beruit 12 years ago. 

> The focus of my comments was really on civilian or non-military targets.
> (Including destruction of government buildings, maybe. I'm not sure whether
> the Oklahoma City bombing and the recent Phoenix/Viper Militia case is
> "terrorism" in a formal sense, or counter-government action, but my point
> is that such things are likely to be happen.)

	IMO the Ok. bombing was a terrorist attack. The attack was carried
out by a civilian (in the sense that he was not acting as a part of any 
government, official or otherwise and not wearing a uniform etc.) 

> >Civilian targets are harder to protect, but certain steps can be
> >taken to lessen chances of a sucessful attack.
> Sure, any particular "soft target" can be hardened to some extent. But not
> all of them, and even harder sites can be reached. This is left as an
> exercise for the reader.
> (Hint: The Japanese cult's Sarin gas attack on the subways...there are tens
> of thousands of comparable targets in the U.S. alone. Look around, and ask
> what it would take to harden each one. A minor cryptographic connection is
> that hardening N of M sites makes the remaining M - N sites all the more
> tempting.)

     I kinda mis-spoke. The way I should have put it was: 	
	
     Steps can be taken to make attacks less likely, and to make it easier 
to capture the individuals responcible afterwords. 

    Think about it. Why have we had so little terrorism in this country? 
This is one of the most diverse countries in the world, we allow damn near
anyone breathing into this country, yet we have much less terrorism than 
does England, France, Germany etc. 
     
     Why? IMO It is opportunity. Maybe everyone who emigrates here doesn't 
get rich, but they are almost _all_ better off than in their original
countries. By keeping this country as free as possible, and allowing the
free exchange of ideas, not jailing (too many) people for political/religious
opnions you at least give the appearance that they can change things w/out
killing things and breaking people. This makes it much harder for the 
potential terrs. to get the financial backing. It also reduces sympathy for 
them in the community. 

     IMO as long as people have the illusion of freedom and upwards 
mobility coupled with the ability to pray to the stupidity of their choice
things will maintain an even keel in this country. You will have the 
occasional UniBomber, but I don't think you will get anything like that 
Japanese Cult w/sarin. Then again we have come close. 
 
> >Another method, and this would be very unpopular (and
> >hypocritical of the US) would be simply to announce that we (the Country)
> >are going to hold the _manufacturing_ nation responcible for the use of
> >weapons of mass destruction. So if Soviet Nerve Gas is used, we gas a
> >city in the Soviet Union. MAD carried to a lower level.
> You are essentially making my point, that the biggest danger of the current
> responses to terrorism is that nations will turn to national terrorism and
> police state tactics.

	I missed that in your original post. 

> >A third option is quite simply to buy as much of it as possible.
> No, wouldn't work. As with the "War on (Some) Drugs," all this does is
> raise the price a bit, actually making it a more tempting market for many
> to get into.

	If the US were to offer Russia $3 billion (or whatever) 
in a one time take it or leave it for their entire chemical weapon stock,
it might get the soviet shit off the market. The nuclear stuff is a little 
easier to store (I think) and it would be a harder sell. 

	I agree tho' that it isn't possible to buy out the market. 
 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com

On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, snow wrote:

>      2) When they _are_ exposed, let them fight the fuck back. Rules of 
>         engagment are simple. When fired on, shoot to kill. If the shot 
>         comes from a building, take out the building. If from a crowd, 
>         well, do you best, but _get the shooter_. 

	Basically, what you're saying is that one armed person in a crowd
of a hundred needs to be killed no matter what happens to the lives of the
other 99? Give me a break, we're not living in the 1800's anymore, we want
to STOP wars, not create them!

> 	If the US were to offer Russia $3 billion (or whatever) 
> in a one time take it or leave it for their entire chemical weapon stock,
> it might get the soviet shit off the market. The nuclear stuff is a little 
> easier to store (I think) and it would be a harder sell. 

	You'll never see it happen. First of all, a lot of the chemical
weapons in the former Soviet Union are probably not even owned by the
government, some are probably owned by private individuals. Secondly, the
former Soviet Union would never give up all their chem. weapons for the
same reason, that the U.S.A would not give up theirs (they'd be left
defenseless, or very open).

Ryan A. Rowe - Montreal, Quebec        /Seeking Internet-related job!/ 
aka CyberEyes, Rubik'S Cube              I will relocate _ANYWHERE_.

Tel. -> +1-514-626-0328                |                 __o         o
E-Mail -> cyberia@cam.org              |               _ \<_        <\
WWW -> http://www.cam.org/~cyberia     | __/\o_       (_)/(_)       />
IRC -> #CAli4NiA, #Triathlon, #Surfing |
FTP -> ftp.cam.org /users/cyberia      |  swim          bike       run

          Read my C.V. at http://www.cam.org/~cyberia/resume-e.html 
           "In lieu of experience, I have a willingness to learn."

             "Everyone has their day, mine is July 15th, 1998."

On Fri, 5 Jul 1996, CyberEyes wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jul 1996, snow wrote:
> >      2) When they _are_ exposed, let them fight the fuck back. Rules of 
> >         engagment are simple. When fired on, shoot to kill. If the shot 
> >         comes from a building, take out the building. If from a crowd, 
> >         well, do you best, but _get the shooter_. 
> 	Basically, what you're saying is that one armed person in a crowd
> of a hundred needs to be killed no matter what happens to the lives of the
> other 99? Give me a break, we're not living in the 1800's anymore, we want
> to STOP wars, not create them!

     Tell that to the person on the recieving of the terrorist bullets/
gernades. 

     The idea is have a very simple policy about terrorism/guerilla warfare/
lone kooks shooting shit up. They will be eliminated. No other changes 
will be made. No midnight house to house searchs, no pograms, no
concentration camps, justa  simple rule. You shoot at armed people you will
die (remember this was in the context of terrorist attacks against military
and harder targets). 

     It is done _immediately_ if not sooner. 

     Possibly it would have the side effect that people in a crowd would 
take down the guy next to them that was pulling the gun becasue they 
know what will happen if they don't. 

i
Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com

Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> >Another method, and this would be very unpopular (and
> >hypocritical of the US) would be simply to announce that we (the Country)
> >are going to hold the _manufacturing_ nation responcible for the use of
> >weapons of mass destruction. So if Soviet Nerve Gas is used, we gas a
> >city in the Soviet Union. MAD carried to a lower level.
> 
> You are essentially making my point, that the biggest danger of the current
> responses to terrorism is that nations will turn to national terrorism and
> police state tactics.

Khm, have you thought about getting 2,000 nukes in response?

	- Igor.