SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-there-a-solution-that-is-less-bad-than-the-problem? dept.
If it seems like every week, there's another terrorist attack – well, you're not wrong. According to one crowdsourcing map, there have been over 500 attacks around the world since the start of 2017, with over 3,500 fatalities. For a period in 2016, ISIS-initiated attacks were occurring, on average, every 84 hours.
Despite improvements in methods and coordination among law enforcement agencies over the past 25 years, they're still hamstrung in a number of ways. With large public gatherings of people becoming more attractive targets for terrorists, what are the best strategies moving forward?
[...] But despite huge budgets and the presence of thousands of added security personnel, it's virtually impossible to prevent a determined terrorist, or guarantee absolute safety. While security efforts for events like the Olympic Games have escalated, terrorists today no longer wait for major events that draw global interest.
[...] The odds are in favor of terrorists. All they have to do is succeed once, no matter how many times they try. For public safety professionals to be fully successful, they have to prevent 100 percent of the terror attempts. It's a number to aspire to, but even the most experienced countries fighting terror – such as Israel and the U.K. – can't measure up to this standard.
[...] These days, it's necessary to consider any place where crowds congregate as vulnerable "soft targets" for the attackers. To better prepare for securing soft targets (and this isn't to say threats against "hard targets," like planes, buildings and infrastructure, have diminished) law enforcement agencies must improve coordination among one another, whether it's via intelligence, information sharing and training. And then there's the need for deconfliction, which refers to avoiding self-defeating behavior – from interagency rivalries and poor communication to insufficient coordination – by people who are on the same side.
[...] Given that there is no way to guarantee complete safety, and that the threat assessment expects more attacks, there are two more elements that ought to receive more attention: community resilience and community policing.
https://theconversation.com/how-can-we-better-protect-crowds-from-terrorism-78443
[Related]:
1996 Atlanta Olympic Games: https://www.britannica.com/event/Atlanta-Olympic-Games-bombing-of-1996
Secure Airport Design: https://skift.com/2016/07/04/how-smart-airport-design-can-make-spaces-more-secure/
Do you agree with this assessment of the security situation ? What do you think could be done to mitigate the effects of such asymmetric warfare ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:36PM (3 children)
Ah yes, the slippery slope fallacy. First we contemplate how to address a growing criminality trend and then suddenly Orwell's nightmare!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:48PM (2 children)
It might be an exaggeration, but I wouldn't call it a fallacy. Various governments all over the world conduct (often illegal) mass surveillance on their own citizens in the name of safety. Then the US has the Unpatriotic Act, the TSA, no-fly lists, and so on. Other countries have their own types of authoritarianism. Violating people's rights in the name of safety is nothing new, and it always seems to be the 'solution' that governments try. Maybe you're eager to show everyone the names of fallacies you read somewhere, but at least apply them properly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 05 2017, @01:33AM (1 child)
Ah yes, the masked man fallacy. The position you are trying to defend is that there is a good reason to suspect that the article is somehow going to lead to a more authoritarian society. As your premise, you cite various organizations and governments which are completely unrelated to the author (Robert Friedmann) and organization he represents (GILEE). Since you didn't even try to establish a logical connection between the two concepts and no immediately obvious connection exists, you have fallaciously substituted the designator with a completely unrelated one.
While this is just a petty insult and not a fallacy, using demeaning language in one's argument is a very good indicator that they are being intellectually dishonest by trying to attack the opponent's character instead of their arguments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 05 2017, @02:18AM
"there is a good reason to suspect that the article is somehow going to lead to a more authoritarian society"
There is a rule, or law, that all agencies and organizations seek and accumulate power and authority. Even if the agency's original purpose has become obsolete and unnecessary, that agency will seek more power in other areas. I don't remember the name of that law, and I'm failing to find it stated clearly on the internet.
But, you might look at this article - https://hbr.org/2003/01/power-is-the-great-motivator [hbr.org]
"Those in the third group—institutional managers—are interested above all in power. Recognizing that you get things done inside organizations only if you can influence the people around you, they focus on building power through influence rather than through their own individual achievement. People in this third group are the most effective, and their direct reports have a greater sense of responsibility, see organizational goals more clearly, and exhibit more team spirit."
"Power without discipline is often directed toward the manager’s personal aggrandizement, not toward the benefit of the institution."
Discipline. There's the key word. Something with which relatively few Americans are familiar.