Skip to main content

Back in 2001, the morning of September the 11th, my friends and I were in class. The instructor was, naturally, trying to get us to focus on our studies. We, of course, were trying to focus on events just a few miles away in Manhattan.

I believe that, at this time, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 had just come out. It's an alternate-history-themed wargame. Numerous challenges in the game involved deploying defensive weapons (like Patriot missile batteries) around national monuments, to prevent them from being destroyed.

Around lunchtime, shortly before the rest of the day's classes were canceled and we were all sent home, one of these friends turned toward us as a group and said, only half jokingly, "Maybe, before you become president or anything, you should have to play through a game of Red Alert 2. That'll teach them to defend national sites with AA guns and Patriot missiles."

Sure, it sounds like a joke. But still...

It really struck me as disappointing that a lot of the various ways terrorists have, or could, carry out attacks seem not to have been anticipated. Now, some of these just can't easily be prevented - who stops people to search their bags as they board a train, for example? - but others could have been avoided, or the damage minimized, by reasonably simple precautions. For example, this might be searching vehicles entering any compound with guards present, or keeping non-authorized surface craft away from Navy ships. I understand some of the automated defenses used by the Navy have been modified to allow operators to override their controls and track small boats, which are warned away by hailing them and telling them to get lost. I have to assume vehicles entering any guarded and enclosed US government compound are searched, at least superficially, for anything that doesn't belong.

These are just examples. I'm not going to go into a full list of ways one could cause havoc if really motivated, because that would be a bad idea. But, well...

It seems to me that there are three four big things you need, if you're going to seriously try to defend against massively destructive terrorist attacks. The zeroeth part is "stop whacking the bees nest" (h/t k9disc). The first of these is boring old detective work: talking to people, tracing financial transactions, finding out who traveled where to speak with whom and do what, all that good stuff. The second part is intelligence work: having someone close to or even part of the groups you suspect are trying to harm you, who can report back and tell you what they're up to. And the third part is getting people with an imagination to think of ways that terrorists might attack, and what a reasonable defense against them would look like. (Reasonable, in this case, being defined as a cost-benefit analysis that weighs the damage that could be caused by a successful attack against the cost in time, effort, money, potential inconvenience to the public and potential infringement of their civil liberties and comes out with an optimal solution.)

In the same way that large corporations and governments sometimes take advice from or even hire people who are skilled in breaking through network security and tricking computer users into doing things they shouldn't... A network hacker who tests for vulnerabilities and then reports them to management so that they will be fixed is a White Hat. (Someone who uses what he finds for his own advantage is a Black Hat.) My question/proposal is this: perhaps our government should consider creating a program to study how terrorists could carry out massively destructive attacks, using historical data to some degree, but also using a good bit of imagination. Then, based on their ideas, find or create ways to stop those plans and judge them by the above standard of reasonableness. Do they do this? And if not, shouldn't they?

It's not too ridiculous, because the US Armed Forces already use simulated exercises to do this kind of thing. You know, Red vs Blue wargaming. Occasionally, a team controlling a militarily-weaker, lower-tech force will find a way to inflict overwhelming damage on the team representing the US military through creative solutions, like using telescopes instead of radar to spot ships and aircraft and sending communications by motorcycle courier instead of radio - after all, anything that broadcasts radio waves can be easily located and destroyed at long distance. But (as happened with one such exercise) if the enemy team creatively uses low-tech methods to evade US high-tech weapons until the last moment, and then opens up with everything it has, it can inflict devastating losses. This historical example resulted in several crippled warships and the loss of many plane-loads of airborne infantry. The tricky thinking that led to this simulated victory is precisely what I'm thinking of here.

Is there government policy that puts in place the kind of thing I'm thinking about here? Or if there isn't: is it a lack of imagination on the part of policymakers, or are there reasons why it would be a really bad idea?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    k9disc, bnasley, kevinpdx, enhydra lutris

    "If we win, we win. If we lose, we die fighting, so it doesn't count. If we run for it, we don't lose either, 'cos we can come back for another go, see? If we leg it, we can fight again another day!"

    by Shaviv on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 09:50:58 AM PST

  •  I don't know... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrkvica, bnasley, Shaviv, JRandomPoster

    I think the first step is to stop whacking the bees nest.

    The War on Terror has nothing to do with defending America. It is about muscling open markets and exploiting People.

    I think you are talking about DARPA, historically and who the hell knows what in the present.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 09:59:34 AM PST

    •  Good point. I edited. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      "If we win, we win. If we lose, we die fighting, so it doesn't count. If we run for it, we don't lose either, 'cos we can come back for another go, see? If we leg it, we can fight again another day!"

      by Shaviv on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:04:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cool, Shaviv... (0+ / 0-)

        You might want to try to find a powerpoint presentation by Thomas P. Barnett called "The Pentagon's New Map".

        It's a presentation given by Barnett that outlines the Transformation of the Pentagon and the new military reality that was the New American Century.

        The reason why I mention this is that Barnett says something to the effect of:

        The job of the pentagon is not to protect America. It's to dream up the future of warfare and build an army that will win it.

        If you just wanted to defend America, I could draw up that budget for $100B - Tomorrow.


        Emphasis, his.

        It's a fascinating presentation by a 'liberal' and it speaks of Security Markets financing our debt.

        Talk about scary shit! We have created security markets and are exporting security to finance our debt.

        Talk about a massive conflict of interest...

        Thanks for the hat tip. Looking forward to reading your stuff again...
        Peace

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Tue Feb 15, 2011 at 10:23:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site