I know this is the time of year when we’re supposed to be giving thanks and dwelling on the nobility of the human soul.
But as a lead-up to the holidays, a young man committed suicide on webcam while people watched, commented and lampooned him for twelve hours before someone thought to get help for him. And Black Friday kicked off at one Walmart with shoppers smashing through a door and trampling a holiday employee to death, actually stepping over his prone body to get to the bargains.
It’s as if either people don’t understand the things they’re witnessing, or simply don’t care. And I’m not sure which is worse.
PAD
• 
No profound insights to offer, but a couple of musings;
How long before someone sues the web hosting company for failure to intervene?
How much do we get desensitised by the amount of – for want of a better term – “bad stuff” we get to see in TV, movies, games, comics, the interweb, etc, etc, etc… (That’s not an “I blame comics” rant, but taking TV news alone, we get to see people starving to death, or subject to genocide in Africa and we just change channels… Something is making it seem OK for us to accept the unacceptable)
For the record, it’s not a new phenomonon. A colleague of mine, back in the mid 80s, had worked as a long distance truck driver in the middle east for a while. His companies standing instructions were that if you hit someone while driving through one of these countries you were to back up over the guy and finish him off.
Because the death benefits payment was less than the ongoing medical and penalty payments.
The value of human life is not, apparently, a universal constant…
Cheers.
That sounds like something that’ll drive your Wal-Mart shoppers to fall in line behind your ruling-class, as opposed to stripping the pretense of competency from them. America still has elections with which the Wal-Mart shoppers feel they have access to the way things are run. Targeting Wal-Mart shopper sounds like something you save for a divided America to keep it divided rather than terrorism to divide America. It’s something you work on after Iraq has broken down into 3 stable territories.
Maybe the real reason we’re still in Iraq is because preventing the country from being redistributed to factions means those factions have to keep their attention there so they don’t miss out on the raiding. Whoever can be traced to having a finger in a Wal-Mart bombing is at a disadvantage when hands are called, because it affects alliances. Bush foolishly stepped into the role of dealer of a poker game that’s dragged-on, and now he’s about to hand-off his cards. (There’s your McCain salespitch.)
“Bladestar, your scenario is the very one I’ve been expecting…for what, 7 years now? It’s easy. It’s effective. It’s obvious. Why hasn’t it happened? I’d like to think we’re doing something right as an explanation but I’m not sure what that would be.”
Maybe because between the crap like the Patriot Act, the condition of our economy, and the over enxtension of our military the terrorists figure they’ve done enough damage and don’t need to be bothered with the US anymore…
People just love to hurt other people; especially anonymously over the net. You can tell because they take so much delight in ripping flesh with their words.
Jerry, I understand your point but it doesn’t change my view of the circumstances surrounding Abraham Biggs’ suicide. Whether or not people believed he was going to go through with it is immaterial in my view. Biggs announced he was going to broadcast his suicide live on the Web, and people tuned in to be entertained. Regardless of whether they thought they were watching a hoax or not, that’s just sick.
Moreover, people were debating online whether what they were watching was real. If anyone had the slightest doubt (as well they should have, since it WAS real) they should have called the authorities.
No, everyone is not me but we aren’t talking about some personal quirks of mine. We’re talking about very basic standards of behavior that shouldn’t be difficult for people to uphold.
Tim Lynch, I don’t believe it’s reasonable to lay the lion’s share of the blame for the Wal-Mart incident on the store’s management. The stampede wasn’t an accident, it was the result of choices made by irresponsible shoppers. Could the incident have been prevented had Wal-Mart taken greater precautions? Perhaps. But the lion’s share of the blame goes to the customers who put cheap merchandise ahead of safety, good sense, and human life.
Nevertheless, I wonder how easy it will be to prosecute those who trampled the Wal-Mart employee to death. I know someone who was caught in a human stampede at a night club. In some cases, he was moving even though his feet weren’t touching the ground! I wonder how authorities will be able to distinguish between those who caused the stampede and those who may have been caught in it.
Tim Lynch, I don’t believe it’s reasonable to lay the lion’s share of the blame for the Wal-Mart incident on the store’s management. The stampede wasn’t an accident, it was the result of choices made by irresponsible shoppers.
But not an intentional result of those choices. Nobody said, “Hey, I’m going to get a cheap TV and kill anyone who stands in my way.” The stampede was not exactly an accident, but the trampling surely was.
I’m not saying anyone had intent here — I just think that if you’re going to try to prosecute anybody in the crowd for manslaughter, you’re probably well advised to go after Wal-Mart for negligence at the same time.
Hold it. Everyone here who’s questioning why no one in the crowd at Wal-Mart stopped to help this guy, consider exactly what you’re asking of these people.
Please explain to me how to stop a mob from trampling one person without getting yourself trampled in the process. It’s not like these people were orderly, in neat lines, walking on the guy’s face one by one. Have you ever been to a concert where the crowd is so thick that you have to move with them or be crushed? I have. And that’s an even more tame version of the situation.
Someone incited a rush in the crowd. Probably in response to the joke that they would open early (that’s a bit like poking a very stupid giant in the toe and then laughing). Not that someone who makes a joke deserves to be trampled. In any event, a rush into the store was started. For the doors to be broken off the hinges, I’m imagining quite a speed too. Would you want to stop in the middle of that? I wouldn’t. I’ve heard enough about crazy soccer stampedes. I’m not going to stop in the middle of a crazy mob and try to help somebody unless I’m about 75% sure that I’ll survive unharmed.
So don’t blame the mob of blood lust, because in that confusion fear would be a much more probable emotion. Now, the insensitive jerks who wouldn’t stop shopping when they were told to leave and the reason for leaving, that is an example of the unsympathetic frenzy that some people whip themselves into.
This reminds me of something that happened at my first job 18 years ago. It was at Children’s Palace right in the middle of the Christmas season. A man came up and sharply asked me if he could see one of the remote-controlled cars that we had in cases at the time. I went to find one of the managers, but it took longer than usual because all of them were out on the floor talking with other customers. By the time I got back with one the man was fuming and told the manager I should be fired because it took me so long to bring him here. Not something you want your manager to hear at your first job.
The fact remains that these days it’s not, “Tis the season to be jolly,” but, “Tis the season to be greedy.” Black Friday, and the incident at Wal-Mart, is a prime example. All of these people wait in line all night. They’re restless, they’re tired, they’re bored. Then the clock rolls around to the opening hour and one poor soul has to walk up and open the doors and suddenly everyone’s heart is racing because it’s time, it’s time to go in, and when the door is unlocked they burst through because they have to have that TV or that PS3 or that whatever. It’s on sale. There’s a limited amount of time. Look at all these people, if I don’t get it they will. I’ve got to get it now now now, wait, what was that I just stepped on, was that, but hey, that guy’s grabbing the last BluRay, that was mine, I saw it first!
This is the mentality of the people that didn’t care that someone died. It takes a sick mind to ignore a dead body in the same building you’re in because you need that latest gadget. You don’t “need” it, you just “want” it. There’s a world of difference.
Jasmine makes a point in that anyone caught in that rush, that crush, of so many people is going to be more focused on getting out of harms way than trying to stop the crowd with their bare hands. But anyone that did become aware of it after the fact should have had their heart go cold with shock. And if their heart didn’t go cold then it was because it was cold to begin with.
Jasmine Loucks: “Please explain to me how to stop a mob from trampling one person without getting yourself trampled in the process.”
Obviously, it’s impossible. It’s also entirely beside the point. One or more people began pushing to get into Wal-Mart, triggering a stampede. They should have known better than to do that.
Tim Lynch, I agree that the mob probably didn’t intend to kill someone but negligence can — and often should — rise to the level of a crime. Again, these people should have known better.
Still, I pity whatever authorities are tasked with reviewing the surveillance video to sort out who can be held responsible, and who was simply swept up by the crowd. Not an easy task, I would guess.
And today (12/01/08)’s top story/ “US Officailly in Recession” Due to the lack luster sales on Black Friday the leading economists are now willing to say that we no longer in an encomic downturn, but a full blow recession. So this poor guy died for nothing.
.
Why not buy through Internet and avoid those mob scenes?
At a guess I’d say because not everyone has Internet, far from it, and people have been known to get dinged doing so (I know of two such), which might discourage them from doing it again and, third, sometimes people aren’t sure what they want and going to an actual store is more efficient in terms of seeing things first hand and deciding which to acquire.
I hate to sound like some conservative a-hole, but in the case of the online suicide, TV is partly to blame.
All those prank shows with hidden cameras that capture people in humiliating situations so that the folks at home can laugh sadistically at the poor sap. Candid Camera, Punk’d, etc. They all make me sick.
I feel embarassed and disgusted when I watch them, but too many people find them hillarious. People have been trained by TV to watch poor saps in outrageous situations and laugh about it. People send each other e-mails with videos of such situations. The online suicide isn’t all that different.
Its sad that two people have died. But the only person you are ever responsible for is yourself.
Do the best job you can and learn from others mistakes and your own.
Don’t commit suicide isn’t exactly on people’s “lesson from today”, but its interesting to note that suicide, even online, cannot get any type of positive statement across at all, cannot change anything in this media assaulting world of ours.
As for walmart, if you believe there is such a thing as a “good death” than this its it. But people die in so many ways, accident, error, slight mistake, old age. Its hard for the remaining family to take solace in this life of someone who seems to have died for no reason.
Yet in either of these incidents can we say no reason exists?
You learned two things, don’t kill yourself, and don’t even stand in front of a stampede.
If all people learned lessons from these incidents then some good would come from them.
The sad thing is that people won’t learn from it, just analyse it, bother themselves about it and forget it.
Just ask yourself if you would have done something to save either of these people, without risking your own life. Would you? If so, let this news go, if not, ask yourself why.
Do something good you weren’t going to do, make it on behalf of these people (naturally keep this to yourself), and some good will have come from it.
This reminds me of a sale we had in the UK recently, although that was in no way as tragic as what occurred at Wal Mart. People were queueing from 9pm the night before and the traffic queue in the morning was so long that the local motorway junction was closed. there were riots and the police were called to site as people fought each other over electrical equipment.
Does Wal Mart and the like owe a debt to their employees with regards to safety? Does the low pricing policy in order to generate excess sales have a bearing here? Why not do these crazy prices on line only? Or better yet, if people are in a queue at 9pm the night before, ask them what they are looking for and give them a ticket.
Toys R Us have done this several times here. I have only been to Star Wars openings but each time them came out early and talked to the queue to make sure we understood what was going to happen. HMV appear also when they have big name stars visit their stores.
Surely Wal Mart should have called the police as soon as things looked like they were getting ugly?
Having said all this, I would arrest each and every shopper that walked / trampled over that body. ESPECIALLY the ones who broke the door in. They must be on camera.
Draconian? Me? No, mearly suggesting solutions for people who appear not to be able to act like a human beaing.
And PAD? Surely not caring is worse than not understandng? Not understanding may be attributable for some of the internet crowd, although I haven’t seen the comments but suspect that this is not the case. Not caring MUST be applied to the Wal Mart crowd – they could SEE what was going on but chose to ignore it. Scary stuff. Mob mentality indeed.
Bladestar’s scenario has one missing ingredient…large numbers of targets. Hitting a few dozen early bird shoppers, even a couple hundred, isn’t nearly the size of target that to me ranks high on a terrorist list. Would it scare people? Surely it would. But there’s also generally a lot of security around these events. Our Wal Mart had 6 police cruisers and crews ready for the crowd, and more were patrolling the parking lot. That’s not counting Wal Mart security.
It also doesn’t make a lot of sense for this event to be a target when every week, somewhere in America, there’s a sporting event or concert or some other show occuring where tens of thousands of people are attending. Any terrorist cell over here is going to be extremely limited in its size, so if/when they do strike, it has to be a larger target.
The expectation a building will be able to hold back a mob of shoppers is more reasonable than the expectation a car from oncoming traffic won’t jump lanes and collide with someone head-on. We all know people who have been in car crashes, where we all don’t know people who’ve died because a building couldn’t hold back a mob. Going by what you’ve said, you aren’t in a position to deny you’re saying everyone in a head-on collision is responsible for his or her own misfortune. Is take that stand you want to take?
Perhaps Bobb, BUT… everyone shops to one degree or another.
Especially at say…the grocery store, or restaraunts.
Get 30-50 terrorists, singleman “teams”. They open fire on and kill a bunch of shoppers at malls, restaraunts, and grocery stores all over the country in different locations. That’ll scare the hëll of Americans more than flying a plane into the WTC or hitting a heavily guarded stadium.
Stadiums and the WTC may have been high profile, but if you want to scare people where the live, you hit locations they actually go to on a regular basis.
How many of us had never been to and never planned to go to the WTC? Going to a sporting event may be more common in most people’s lives, and hitting someplace big might be more “High Profile”, but you hit a kid’s soccer or t-ball game (much less security) and you scare a LOT more people and more deeply.
Hit these kind of targets (and the shooters wire themselves to explode to take care of any “heroes” that try to stop them) more or less simultaneously and you will trigger the kind of panic not seen on that large a scale before in the US.
Surely Wal Mart should have called the police as soon as things looked like they were getting ugly?
The problem there, James, is that it probably didn’t even appear as if it was going to get ugly. (Well…no moreso than any other year, at any rate.) They’ve had long lines like that for Black Friday for years. They’ve had huge crowds at opening time on Black Friday for years. They’ve had no fatalities on Black Friday for years.
My wife, her sister and a few cousins have an annual tradition of hitting the Black Friday sales, and hitting them early. From my wife’s report – having gone to a Wal-Mart and Target right across the street from one another – Target had everyone lined up going through an area that pretty much forced a single-file line, kept one of the two entrances closed until the line was inside, had the open entrance barricaded with carts to prevent “walk ups” from jumping in line, and had both store security and local police present as they began letting customers in. I’ve read someone else post that their local Target also used railings or rope lines inside to direct traffic to initially different sections of the store, to make that initial traffic move a bit more smoothly. From my wife’s account, the customers at Target weren’t as frenzied as the ones across the street at Wal-Mart had been when she was there, and many of the other shoppers at Target were ones she’d seen across the street.
The Black Friday sales probably aren’t going anywhere anytime soon, but I feel it’s safe to say that a lot of the stores will put a lot more thought into crowd control (like Target did) in the years to come.
majorlynch : “As for walmart, if you believe there is such a thing as a “good death” than this its it. But people die in so many ways, accident, error, slight mistake, old age. Its hard for the remaining family to take solace in this life of someone who seems to have died for no reason.”
You can’t be serious. There’s no way in hëll that this could be called a “good death” in any way, shape or form. Being crushed to death over a minute or several minutes, feeling the cracking and breaking of bones, feeling the pain of (probably) having a punctured lung, feeling the popping pain of things inside your body crushing and bleeding and then feeling the fear that accompanies the last moments of consciousness…
You’ve got to be a fairly twisted person to call this a “good” death.
Posted by: Bladestar at November 30, 2008 10:25 PM
“I pictured 30-50 terrorists,”
The larger the group the greater the chance of getting caught. Organizing a group like that in the US without being detected is harder than in India.
“suicide bombers armed with assualt rifles or something similar, at different malls/stores throughout the country, opening fire at 4 am into the crowds of waiting sheep …err shoppers… and then wading into the remains of the crowds and detonating themselves.”
After you shoot people either die or runaway. You can’t wade into them and blow yourself up. Remember, always pillage before you burn. You either blow yourself up in the crowd or you shoot them. Not both.
“Hit these kind of targets (and the shooters wire themselves to explode to take care of any “heroes” that try to stop them)”
The way to do that is to explode one bomber and then wait for the police and emergency service to come and then blow up another bomb. It’s been done.
“Stadiums and the WTC may have been high profile, but if you want to scare people where the live, you hit locations they actually go to on a regular basis.”
This works better if you can have a sustained campaign, daily or weekly or at least monthly. If, you are like Al-Quaida, and can only do something on rare occasions, you want to do something big. Still, a combined attack on several occasions in the same day can have a nice effect.
“malls, restaraunts, and grocery stores”
“you will trigger the kind of panic not seen on that large a scale before in the US.”
People are more resilient and adaptable. Life goes on. Although people will be ordering in a lot in the short term. In the long term things will get back to normal.
“Why India? Starting an India/Pakistan war doesn’t seem like a great move on Al Queda’s part.”
Why not. I don’t think Al-Quaida will object to such a war, unless they think their constituency will be unhappy with them for it. And even then…
But success doesn’t depend on such a war. It’s enough just to become a player in Muslim related problems in India, as well as Pakistan.
Terrorists are like trolls. They want attention. Maybe that’s why I don’t like terrorists?
Apologies Jerry, dámņ typing fingers are always getting ahead of me and causing some typos, naturally I meant
“As for walmart, if you believe there is such a thing as a “good death” than this isn’t it.
But I’m sure thats implied by the rest of the message anyway.
My embarrasment could blot out the sun.
Bill – “If anyone had the slightest doubt (as well they should have, since it WAS real) they should have called the authorities.”
Which ‘authorities’? If you know the next-door neighbour is about to off himself, you call the city cops, tell them Joe the Carpenter (vaguely related to Joe the Plumber)has a gun to his head and is threatening to kill himself at (street address). Before you finish hanging up, there’ll be a tactical intervention squad knocking on his door.
But in this case? What are you going to do? Call the cops and tell them someone, somewhere on the planet is threatening to kill themselves? That’s the nature of the Internet. Unless you can look out a window behind the guy and see the Eiffel Tower (don’t mistake Tokyo Tower for it, though) or the Washington monument, how are you supposed to know where he is? Most people don’t know how to use IP tracers and they can be fooled or spoofed anyway. Let’s say – and it’s highly unlikely – that the cops accepted jurisdiction, what are they going to do? Have a negotiator join the chat channel? Hope they’ll be heard or noticed in the mess of people egging the idiot on?
Nytwyng – “The Black Friday sales probably aren’t going anywhere anytime soon”
Perhaps not, but the name has just taken on another, rather unpleasant connotation.
Rene – “All those prank shows with hidden cameras that capture people in humiliating situations so that the folks at home can laugh sadistically at the poor sap. Candid Camera, Punk’d, etc. They all make me sick.”
Partly agree, but I vehemently disagree on the CANDID CAMERA one. At least in its original incarnation it simply set up an absurd situation and recorded peoples’ reactions to it, then playing it back if they so consented. Did I laugh? Of course. But not sadistically. I laughed because the situation was genuinely funny and I could easily see myself reacting the same way. So, in a sense, I was laughing at myself. The new crop? BIG BROTHER et al? There you’re right. They are just engineered to bring out the worst in people and I detest them.
Micha – “‘Why India? Starting an India/Pakistan war doesn’t seem like a great move on Al Queda’s part.’
Why not. I don’t think Al-Quaida will object to such a war”
Perhaps they might not be so happy because of the heavy Muslim population in India which would take a serious hit in the advent of such a war?
Both countries have nukes. It only seems natural triggering a nuclear-exchange fulfills the terror agenda better than triggering a kitten-exchange.
Me–“Why India? Starting an India/Pakistan war doesn’t seem like a great move on Al Queda’s part.”
Micha–Why not. I don’t think Al-Quaida will object to such a war, unless they think their constituency will be unhappy with them for it. And even then…
My reasoning would be that currently Pakistan serves as the safest place for Al Queda. Since I don’t see any way that a major war between India and Pakistan does not end with a major defeat for Pakistan, it seems a pretty risky move on their part to plunge their safe haven into potential nuclear conflict. But nobody said they were the smartest people around. Micha’s comparison to internet trolls is somewhat apt–they can make sure people are aware that they exist, cause some trouble (though even that can be a matter of perspective–more people died in India from car wrecks than from terrorists that day and for most of the terrorists it was a one time deal, before they began an eternity in hëll) but they are essentially parasites, depending on their hosts for what ever relevance they may have. As the experience in Israel shows, even a serious long term terrorist campaign will eventually peter out due to lack of idiots willing to blow up themselves or just more effective prevention on the part of the intended victims.
So long as we can keep them from obtaining WMDs and do a decent job of infiltrating them and paying off informers they should prove to be a manageable factor. This assumes they don’t have a major governmental power behind them and given the likelihood that such a power would pay a great price for that support I’m a good deal more optimistic than I was before.
To my way of thinking, those directly responsible for the Wal-Mart employee’s death– but especially those who callously insisted they had a right to keep shopping– should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Some sort of suitably appropriate Twilight Zoneish fate should also befall the latter group. What kind of reprobate doesn’t understand the concept of “the store’s been closed. Someone has died.”?
Wouldn’t surprise me if these losers expressed the same level of indignation about being kept out of a store because of a death that they would have at having to go around to the west entrance of a mall because the east entrance is under construction.
Maybe some of the people who were at that Wal-Mart– and maybe even some who insisted on being allowed to shop– now feel some degree of shame, but I doubt it’d be very many. Maybe I’m too cynical, but I’d be genuinely surprised if any of the “I have a right to shop now” crowd feels any sense of shame or regret.
Why would they? The world obviously revolves around them.
As to the question of not understanding or not caring, I’d put those who were swept up and carried along by the crowd in the former group. But those who kept shopping? Definitely didn’t care.
If there’s an afterlife, all those people should have to petition the man who died for access to Heaven. When their time comes, let them explain to him why they had to have a new TV (or whatever) at that precise moment.
Rick
If no one risked advantages for larger gains, there’d be no such thing as gambling. What good is their safety if they aren’t making progress in spreading fear?
Posted by: The StarWolf at December 3, 2008 08:35 AM
Micha – “‘Why India? Starting an India/Pakistan war doesn’t seem like a great move on Al Queda’s part.’
Why not. I don’t think Al-Quaida will object to such a war”
Starwolf – “Perhaps they might not be so happy because of the heavy Muslim population in India which would take a serious hit in the advent of such a war?”
Experience has shown us that Islamic terrorists are willing to live with direct or indirect harm to other Muslims, although they are not indifferent to public opinion among Muslims.
However, nuclear war is a completely different ball game. There is no experience to draw on. It is difficult to imagine. I don’t think Al-Quaida will mind a conventional war between India and Pakistan. I don’t have any idea how they’ll feel about a nuclear one. I also don’t know what’s the chances of such a war. The US and USSR never had a direct war with each other. Can two nuclear countries have a non-nuclear war?
———-
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at December 3, 2008 10:58 AM
Bill–“Why India? Starting an India/Pakistan war doesn’t seem like a great move on Al Queda’s part.”
Micha–Why not. I don’t think Al-Quaida will object to such a war, unless they think their constituency will be unhappy with them for it. And even then…
Bill – “My reasoning would be that currently Pakistan serves as the safest place for Al Queda.”
Micha – I don’t know much about it, but I don’t think Pakistan is currently sheltering Al-Quaida. Al-Quaida is in Pakistan, but they don’t need the Pakistani state to protect them. In fact they’ll probably be happy to see it collapse. I don’t know how they are positioned in Pakistan, and how much material harm they (Al-Quaida) will suffer from a direct military confrontation with India. The US attack in Afgahnistan did cause them harm. But Al-Quaida was allied with the Taliban government, and the US captured the whole country.
Bill – “Since I don’t see any way that a major war between India and Pakistan does not end with a major defeat for Pakistan, it seems a pretty risky move on their part to plunge their safe haven into potential nuclear conflict.”
Micha – Like I said, it is difficult to imagine a nuclear war or Al-Quaida’s attitude toward one. I don’t know how conventional wars work in this region, but I doubt such a war will result in India conquering Pakistan in the way the US did in Afghanistan and Iraq. And even if they did, India will find itself in similar problems.
Bill – “Micha’s comparison to internet trolls is somewhat apt–they can make sure people are aware that they exist, cause some trouble (though even that can be a matter of perspective–more people died in India from car wrecks than from terrorists that day”
Micha – Car wrecks don’t have the kind of disruptive effect on society terrorism does. In Iraq and Afghanistan we see this disruptive effect really making it difficult for a country to function.
Bill – “and for most of the terrorists it was a one time deal, before they began an eternity in hëll)”
Micha – There are more that are drawn by the glory of martyrdom.
Bill – “As the experience in Israel shows, even a serious long term terrorist campaign will eventually peter out due to lack of idiots willing to blow up themselves or just more effective prevention on the part of the intended victims.
Micha – There is no way to win a war on terror. You need to find the right combination of offensive and defensive force, diplomacy, economy and cultural tools for a changing circumstances in order to make things as good as possible. We (Israel) sometimes have an OK (but imperfect) combination and sometimes not so much. I don’t know what’s the right blend for India. Their problem is similar to the one we have with Gaza and Lebanon but much worse, and we haven’t been very successful finding the right combination as of yet for these circumstances. We did find the right (but imperfect) one to stop the suicide bombers campaign earlier in this decade, which was a greater problem than what we have now.
Bill – “So long as we can keep them from obtaining WMDs and do a decent job of infiltrating them and paying off informers they should prove to be a manageable factor. This assumes they don’t have a major governmental power behind them and given the likelihood that such a power would pay a great price for that support I’m a good deal more optimistic than I was before.”
It would seem that this is the best option for the US and the only option for India — i.e. focusing on defensive and limited offensive methods. I don’t know what’s India’s diplomatic options.
Micha, given that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, I hope neither side gets itchy trigger fingers and decides that mushroom clouds over New Delhi or Islamabad is a “diplomatic option”.
Otherwise, the option I see as most effective is to convince Pakistan to exert it’s authority over the tribal areas, or admit it’s lack of control and allow Special Forces in to go after Al-Quaida.
You are correct, a “war on Terror” is unwinnable. You cannt defeat a concept with conventional weapons and tactics.
India cannot let popular anger drive it’s response. There is an important distinction between the attackers coming from Pakistan and Pakistan being responsible for the attack.
Bill, preventing these groups from getting WMD is impossible. No matter how hard we try, somewhere, some genius with a lab and dreams of martyrdom will mix up some crude chemical or biological weapon. Using effective intelligence and counter measures to prevent deployment will be vital.
Also, they probably have people networked to finesse nuclear secrets and materials when hostilities manifest openly, whether those hostilities become nuclear or not. If the trade-off for moving is progress in getting a nuke working, it’s a deal the rest of us would prefer were withheld from them. Stateless is part of the definition of terrorist.
Manny – “There is an important distinction between the attackers coming from Pakistan and Pakistan being responsible for the attack.”
True. But That didn’t stop the U.S. and others from storming into Afghanistan when it was deemed that the attackers had been based there and the Afghani government were quite happy to let them be. It wasn’t the government per se who performed the deeds, but their willingness to give the perpetrators safe haven was deemed sufficient to have the tanks roll in.
Bill, preventing these groups from getting WMD is impossible. No matter how hard we try, somewhere, some genius with a lab and dreams of martyrdom will mix up some crude chemical or biological weapon. Using effective intelligence and counter measures to prevent deployment will be vital.
I’m focusing mainly on the M part of WMD. You’re right that anyone with access to a jar, some meat and a bit of dirt could make enough botulism toxin to kill millions but it’s the delivery that makes it a challenge. As the anthrax letters showed, crude weapons may not kill that many people. i was certain that anthrax was going to be The Big Thing but it seems to have very limited effectiveness if it isn’t delivered in a pretty high tech way (again, I’m talking about MASS killing here–anyone dumb enough to fool with anthrax could easily off themselves in the process).
One avenue that I hope the authorities are pursuing is to set up dummy sources of the raw materials needed to try to make chemical and biological weapons. Just to pick off the lazier would be mad scientists.
You are right that we can’t stop the occasional nut with ambition–thank God the Timothy McVieghs of the world seem to be in short supply but we will always see a few of them raise their malevolent heads. But their capacity for destruction, appalling as it is, has limits. the scenario of an entire city destroyed seems to have receded somewhat in likelihood, or so I hope.
…until we learn someone has figured out how to cross-breed anthrax with smallpox, like the Russians were reportedly working on.
James asked:
Why not do these crazy prices on line only?
Honestly? Because someone would just sue Wal*Mart for excluding people without internet access.
India and Pakistan throwing nuclear weapons back and forth would be a bad thing, yes. But this isn’t the real problem there. The problem is, how accurate would Pakistan’s be? They overshoot and … well, let’s say China would not be amused. And then? All bets are off.
The problem is, how accurate would Pakistan’s be? They overshoot and … well, let’s say China would not be amused. And then? All bets are off.
More likely they’d bomb…Pakistan. But you make a good point. Who knows how accurate ICBMs are anyway? You can’t really test them. I wonder what the assumed rate of failure would be for a massive launch of missiles.
(I’ve also long wondered why the fabled electromagnetic pulse from the first detonated bomb would not knock many of the subsequent bombs out of the sky short of their intended target.)
Not sure that there has ever been any attempt to “crossbreed” anthrax with smallpox. One’s a virus and one’s a bacteria so you are working with two very different organisms, kind of like breeding a human with an artichoke. Better by far to add ebola DNA to the smallpox genome or cross anthrax with influenza.
Well, and refusal to give them up as well. Quite rightly, the US DID give non-military means a chance to work. When they didn’t, in they went.
“You are correct, a “war on Terror” is unwinnable. You cannt defeat a concept with conventional weapons and tactics”
Not exactly. The point I was trying to make is that this kind of war will not end with the kind of victory people dream of. The kind of WWII, Hitler killing himself, sailor kisses girl on 42nd street, Ewaks celebrating kind of ending. But I don’t want to create an impression of helplessness, that there’s nothing to be done, or even that use of military force is pointless.
“India cannot let popular anger drive it’s response. “
I agree. But there is another side. The people are entitled to expect their government to provide a reasonable level of security. If a moderate government seems incapable of providing security, it makes moderation look inept, which results in extremists coming into power.
[I’m not saying that India’s government is incompetent. I’m worried it will seem that way. Israel’s moderate covernment is incompetent, and regretably it means that a right wing government will win the next election without doubt]
“Micha, given that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, I hope neither side gets itchy trigger fingers and decides that mushroom clouds over New Delhi or Islamabad is a “diplomatic option”.”
I don’t think it’s likely that either country will use a nuclear weapon against each other. I am curious whether the possession of nuclear weapons means they won’t have any wars, or if they can have a conventional one.
“Otherwise, the option I see as most effective is to convince Pakistan to exert it’s authority over the tribal areas, or admit it’s lack of control and allow Special Forces in to go after Al-Quaida.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t think this is unlikely either. Just as there are times military force has its limitations, there are other times diplomacy is limited too. It is possible that the Pakistani government is convinced at this stage to want to reduce the power of extremists, not because of convincing but because of the terror in Pakistan. But I don’t think they can do it and I really doubt they’ll let some othr army in to fight instead.
[I don’t know much about this, so this is my very limited impression + extrapolation from places I am familiar with]
“Manny – “There is an important distinction between the attackers coming from Pakistan and Pakistan being responsible for the attack.”
Starwolf- True. But That didn’t stop the U.S. and others from storming into Afghanistan when it was deemed that the attackers had been based there and the Afghani government were quite happy to let them be. It wasn’t the government per se who performed the deeds, but their willingness to give the perpetrators safe haven was deemed sufficient to have the tanks roll in.”
Afghanisan and Pakistan are at two extreme edges of the spectrum. Afghanistan had a government which was allied with and provided support for Al-Quaida. Pakistan is a country that has lost control of a section of its land to Al-Quaida, and which is itself a victim of terrorism by Islamic extremists. Although it has been argued that previous Pakistani governments let that viper grow in their midst.
In any case, if a immediate military threat grows somewhere the question whether it is or it isn’t the fault of this or that government is less important than dealing with the threat, miltarily if necessary. But I don’t don’t know if the option is available or adviseable right now. Obviously starting a war with Pakistan in order to get to the extremists will be unwise if the results of the war will be bad and the chances for success are too limited. Again, you have to find the right combination of tools for the right problem. What they are in India’s case I do not know.
“Bill, preventing these groups from getting WMD is impossible.”
I agree with Bill. considering how long nuclear, chemical and biological weapons have existed, we seem to be doing well. It’s like the joke: how do get to be 120 years old? Get to 119 and then be very careful.
India and Pakistan are pretty big targets.
8 years ago a green rabbit that glowed in the dark was engineered with genes from some kind of glow-in-the-dark sea creature. Just because a property comes from another mammal, like antlers or speech, that doesn’t necessarily make it easier to engineer in rabbits.
Rabbit=animal. Sea creature=animal.
anthrax=bacteria. smallpox=virus.
Different kingdoms. Monera are not Viruses. By some definitions, Viruses can’t even be considered living, a generally accepted requirement for crossbreeding. It’s not impossible to introduce DNA from different kingdoms into an organism but that isn’t crossbreeding.
crossbreeding involves the mating of different organisms but organisms within the same kingdom. Among other difficulties one would have, Viruses don’t mate.
But if anyone has managed to even attempt to “crossbreed” anthrax and smallpox I’m sure a link can be provided. I’d be very interested in reading it.
(One could certainly add viral DNA to a bacteria. It would be very very very unlikely that doing this would transfer any particular qualities to the bacteria–given the radically different ways that smallpox and anthrax work it seems almost impossible to imagine smallpox genes making anthrax a more efficient killer. But again, I’d certainly like to read any evidence to the contrary.)
I probably read it smallpox/ebola. Thanks, Bill.
There are general definitions of “breed” which seem to make existing words like “crossbreed,” “interbreeding,” and “hybridization” more practical to use for even non-mating critters than constantly calling it something like “genetic engineering,” or phrases rooted in words with multiple, general definitions, like “culture.”
yeah, smallpox/ebola makes more sense. nasty business that would be, potentially.
then again, it would probably be a lot smarter to just modify smallpox until current vaccines didn’t work. Ebola is more lethal than smallpox but it’s also easier to avoid–for one thing, nobody would go near anyone would blood seeping out of every pore. and there’s the whole question of why Russia would even waste time on something that couldn’t be used anyway. They drop germ bombs on us, we drop nuclear bombs on them, doesn’t seem like a very smart exchange for them–they get turned into thermic mist while we get property largely untouched (and a few potential survivors just from random natural immunity).
I guess it was going to be meant more as a psychological thing and yeah, it would be scary–“Ha ha ha, we have a virus that spreads through the air and gives you AIDS, herpes and chickenpox, then the sores turn to blood and you cough scabs for 3 days and your extremities fall off and you die but by that time you’re glad you’re dead on account of the whole dropped extremity bit…”
But it really seems like a lot of money to spend on something that has no logical scenario for good usage. And a lot of scenarios for disaster to Russia.
Ebola infections start out as 2 weeks of nausea with no bleeding. If anthrax and influenza are bacteria, then yes, smallpox sounds like the best gene-source to give it contagious properties during that stage of infection. Soldiers can be given smallpox vaccines, but the last I’ve heard, there is no ebola vaccine. Nuking Russia isn’t going to stop terrorists from sending carriers to train stations.
But Russia was presumably making these hybrids not for terrorists but for strategic value. I just don’t see much strategic value.
If, on the other hand, you are correct that the purpose of their research was to give terrorists something useful to work with, then Ronald Reagan’s assessment of them as an evil empire was way too generous.
Well, the reported source was someone who confessed to working on it, who was claiming to blow the whistle on his peers living in poverty and desperate enough to consider offers of the highest bidder. He may have been referring to events post-Soviet-collapse, but if such a project was Soviet-directed, a contagion that could infect a whole territory before anyone realized it was 90% fatal could have been an effective counter to having their helicopters blown out of Afghani-airspace.
“India and Pakistan are pretty big targets.”
That they are. But I can’t help remembering a comment made – years after the fact – about the Snark, the first long-range cruise missile in the 50s. That “it would have been lucky to hit the right continent.” Yes, technology has improved since, but …