Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Could British invention foil terror bombs?

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#31

Post by rbcgerard »

mseebach wrote: post #11
Totoradio wrote: post #2

I don't know if this device works, but this is just wrong: >"I'm sorry to say, but the Brussels attack, this would have instantly sorted out the terrorists before they came into the terminal, and similarly the concert in Paris," he says. "If it had been on the doors there, it would have stopped people getting in." The terrorists who attacked the Bataclan didn't arrive as simple concert goers, they had AK-47s and shot…

An effective deployment of the device would probably involve a sort of sluice gate setup, that will detect traffic through an outer perimeter and, when triggered, seals an inner perimeter. The distance between the two is designed to be greater than that which can be covered on foot in the time the device takes to make a detection. That, of course, ignores a central lesson of the Brussels attacks: They happened before…

The logical extension of preventing terrorism before security is expanding security further and further away, until it's in your home

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#32

Post by leaveyou »

sametmax wrote: post #3

I find crazy the amount of resources we deploy to fight something: - that causes little deaths compared to most diseases or social issues. - cost little compared to most economical or educational issues. - has little long term consequences on the country compared to internal and external policies, laws, politics and visions; - is a direct consequence of social, economical and educational issues and a by product of po…

Yeah, soon we will be like "God forbid if we run out of terrorists.." because peace could really ruin our economy.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#33

Post by sametmax »

rayiner wrote: post #20
sametmax wrote: post #3

I find crazy the amount of resources we deploy to fight something: - that causes little deaths compared to most diseases or social issues. - cost little compared to most economical or educational issues. - has little long term consequences on the country compared to internal and external policies, laws, politics and visions; - is a direct consequence of social, economical and educational issues and a by product of po…

People don't view the impact of death merely in terms of body count. If we did, we wouldn't care about serial killers or child abductions or people shot by police. We devote major resources to fighting terrorism not because of the body count, but because we feel it deeply unjust to allow terrorists to kill innocent people to make a political point, especially when that political point is an attack on fundamental prec…

Your point suggest people are actually thinking about it, while discussions I had in the past show, to the contrary, a complete lack of thinking and a full emotional reaction, even way after the fact.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#35

Post by wildmusings »

nkozyra wrote: post #25
rayiner wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't view the impact of death merely in terms of body count. If we did, we wouldn't care about serial killers or child abductions or people shot by police. We devote major resources to fighting terrorism not because of the body count, but because we feel it deeply unjust to allow terrorists to kill innocent people to make a political point, especially when that political point is an attack on fundamental prec…

One other difference - at least in terms of perception - is that the threats you listed are relatively static over time. Terrorism is a movement that involves recruitment and contains inherent plans to expand. To be the first to invoke Godwin's here, the Nazis did not statistically represent a significant daily threat to health and safety in 1928, either. Looking at present body counts as a gauge for what's worth "fr…

Exactly, terrorism is a high-variance event and we can't extrapolate that future violence will resemble current violence. A single catastrophic attack, like a nuke in a city, makes everything that happened before irrelevant. 9/11 itself was a huge escalation, the most deadly terrorist attack in history by far. Future death tolls are limited only by the capabilities of the terrorists and our ability to stop them. They would kill millions of us if they could.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#36

Post by gerbilly »

sametmax wrote: post #3

I find crazy the amount of resources we deploy to fight something: - that causes little deaths compared to most diseases or social issues. - cost little compared to most economical or educational issues. - has little long term consequences on the country compared to internal and external policies, laws, politics and visions; - is a direct consequence of social, economical and educational issues and a by product of po…

I think humans have a cognitive bias that makes them fear risks more if they perceive "ill will" behind it.

A natural disaster is scary and can kill a lot of people, but to most people it feels more impersonal.

When someone is targeting people directly (serial killers, murderers, terrorists) it feels scarier because there is an intention to harm.

This bias is stronger that probability. Even if someone lived near a volcano that had a 5% chance of killing you every year, I bet that same person would be more scared of a terror attack that had .01% chance of killing you per year.

This is reflected in our legal institutions. If you kill a person accidentally, even through neglect, that is involuntary manslaughter, but if you kill deliberately, that is murder.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#37

Post by gmac »

yoo1I wrote: post #14
yoo1I wrote: post #10

No. Now to read the article.

> "If it had been on the doors there, it would have stopped people getting in." Problem? People blowing themselves up on airplanes. Solution: Check them for bombs before they board the airplane. Next Problem? People blowing themselves up in the lines before the bomb check in the airport. Solution: Check people outside the airport. Next Problem? People blowing themselves up in the lines outside the airport Solution: C…

Plan?

First, get news media to lift their embargo on trying to understand the motivations of people who perpetrate these awful attacks. Right now, it seems the only acceptable explanation is comic-book evil plus religious prejudice ("they hate our freedoms!"). This is basically a taboo on the application of reason, and we'll get nowhere until it goes away.

Second, reflect a little on the possible motivations of these people.

Third, I suspect, attempt to persuade Western governments to stop (or significantly scale back) blowing people up, murdering them without trial, etc, in other parts of the world. Best estimates for the body count in Iraq, for example, are in the many hundreds of thousands, and many of those cannot be combatants. I absolutely condemn terrorism, but if I were a terrorist, I'm pretty sure this would be my motivation.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#38

Post by reacweb »

sametmax wrote: post #12
peterclary wrote: post #6

"First, a microscopic amount of Semtex 1A high explosive is dabbed onto a T-shirt. To the naked eye, it is almost invisible - but from a large, red, metal box mounted on a portable steel trolley an ultra-violet laser beam flickers on to the white cotton surface of the garment. Immediately, a warning flashes up on the display monitor." So you would be able to cause disruption AND get innocents locked up by simply cove…

And by spraying markers on a lot of people you can either: - cost a lot of money by forcing events to be cancelled; - enforce more invasive/costly security measures; - diminush the value of the security mesure and pass a bomb in. But this is what's strange with terrorists : they strike ma as utterly incompetents. There is so many easy ways to fuck things up, and they always do the ineficient and hard things. My fathe…

I think, this is one part of the terror: they show how they can hurt while using inefficient techniques (craft knives for the 9/11).

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#39

Post by wildmusings »

sametmax wrote: post #8
ross-life wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because (it feels) like it's not possible to properly debate the subject in public. As a little/normal person the answer is always the same: "But but what if it was your mother/girlfriend/daughter that died in the attack?!". These are the same people that probably have been into contact with someone who has directly dealt with the consequences of police corruption, yet won't ever support "making the police's job hard…

Yes but why do we fail to convince ? What can we do to help people not panicking ?

If panic is to be averted, the leadership of the West has to show that they take the problem seriously. As long as people are tiptoeing around even calling the problem what it is, hard-line sentiment will grow.

Tony Blair had some good thoughts on this lately: ""The centre has become flabby and unwilling to take people on. We concede far too much. There's this idea that you're part of an elite if you think in terms of respectful tolerance towards other people. It's ridiculous [...] You have to give a real solution and not one which is populist but false. If you don't give a solution, and you leave people with a choice between what I would call a bit of flabby liberalism and the hardline, they'll take the hardline I'm afraid." Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-35862598

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#40

Post by TillE »

yoo1I wrote: post #14
yoo1I wrote: post #10

No. Now to read the article.

> "If it had been on the doors there, it would have stopped people getting in." Problem? People blowing themselves up on airplanes. Solution: Check them for bombs before they board the airplane. Next Problem? People blowing themselves up in the lines before the bomb check in the airport. Solution: Check people outside the airport. Next Problem? People blowing themselves up in the lines outside the airport Solution: C…

> trains

Speaking of which, the dumbest NYT editorial I've read in the past decade was their nonsensical insistence on airport-style security for "international trains" in Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/25/opinion/heroes-thwart-a-tr...

Trains are not an especially interesting target for terrorists! I have no idea how this piece could have been written without any of the editors putting the tiniest bit of thought into the basic premise.

Post reply on HN