![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Unpleasant realiy
Apr. 17th, 2013 11:39 pmThe talking heads (both news and politicians) are talking about preventing incidents like the bombs at the Boston Marathon.
The reality is that this is an *impossible* goal. It is not remotely possible to completely prevent bombings and other terrorist acts.
Two relevant data points: there were terrorist attacks (not a lot, but still *some*) in the USSR. And llook how well banning weapons works in prison.
Since the USSR and prisons are both far "stricter" than anything the public *should* be willing to accept, that pretty much proves that we can't *stop* such things.
We can discourage them. We can track down people after they occur. But anyone claiming they can prevent them is either lying (and has an agenda you won't like) or deluded.
Also, beware of the "if it saves one life" arguments. You may not like it, but saving lives has a *cost*. Sometimes in money, sometimes in less tangible things. So consider what the "if it saves one life" people are asking you to pay. Be it increased taxes, lessened freedom or other "inconveniences" (note that one man's idea of an "inconvenience" may be a showstopper of a problem for another).
I'm sure there are folks who consider it heartless, but we really *do* need to do cost/benefit analysis on even stuff like this. And yes, different people will see the "costs" and benefits differently.
Keep an important example in mind. Ralph Nader, way back in the late 60s helped *force* airbags to be added to cars. A quarter century later, he was arguing against them because there were instances where they increased the hazards. Also note that he had denigrated the car compnies for saying they needed more testing way back when.
We need to make sure we don't make similar *or worse* mistakes in adopting measures to make us "safer" from "terrorists". And we need to pay attention to the folks arguing *against* the "safety" measures.
The reality is that this is an *impossible* goal. It is not remotely possible to completely prevent bombings and other terrorist acts.
Two relevant data points: there were terrorist attacks (not a lot, but still *some*) in the USSR. And llook how well banning weapons works in prison.
Since the USSR and prisons are both far "stricter" than anything the public *should* be willing to accept, that pretty much proves that we can't *stop* such things.
We can discourage them. We can track down people after they occur. But anyone claiming they can prevent them is either lying (and has an agenda you won't like) or deluded.
Also, beware of the "if it saves one life" arguments. You may not like it, but saving lives has a *cost*. Sometimes in money, sometimes in less tangible things. So consider what the "if it saves one life" people are asking you to pay. Be it increased taxes, lessened freedom or other "inconveniences" (note that one man's idea of an "inconvenience" may be a showstopper of a problem for another).
I'm sure there are folks who consider it heartless, but we really *do* need to do cost/benefit analysis on even stuff like this. And yes, different people will see the "costs" and benefits differently.
Keep an important example in mind. Ralph Nader, way back in the late 60s helped *force* airbags to be added to cars. A quarter century later, he was arguing against them because there were instances where they increased the hazards. Also note that he had denigrated the car compnies for saying they needed more testing way back when.
We need to make sure we don't make similar *or worse* mistakes in adopting measures to make us "safer" from "terrorists". And we need to pay attention to the folks arguing *against* the "safety" measures.
