Why Have We Not Been Attacked Again? Competing and Complementary Hypotheses
Courtesy of the NEFA Foundation:
Quote:
"Why Have We Not Been Attacked Again? Competing and Complementary Hypotheses for Homeland Attack Frequency", June 2008.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Science International Applications Corporation released a report titled, "Why Have We Not Been Attacked Again? Competing and Complementary Hypotheses for Homeland Attack Frequency." As the authors explain, "The hypotheses analyzed in this report can be divided roughly into two broad categories. The first category – Capabilities – suggests that terrorists have been unable to succeed in conducting another large-scale attack on the homeland due to the effectiveness of U.S. defenses or because of the terrorists’ limited capabilities. The second category – Motivations – assumes that a number of terrorist groups possess the ability to attack the United States but have chosen not to do so for a variety of reasons." There are more than two dozen competing explanations and "this study suggests that identifying a complete and consistent explanation for the non-occurrence of a subsequent attack on the U.S. homeland may not be possible."
208 page PDF
Anybody have a favored hypotheses or combination of?
I have a combination that may seem contradictory:
Hypothesis F) Terrorist threat has been massively exaggerated
Hypothesis H) Al-Qaeda is waiting to acquire a CBRN capability
Hypothesis L) Al-Qaeda’s next attack must surpass 9/11
Hypothesis Z) Al-Qaeda’s goal is to “bleed” the United States dry economically
How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Of course, another question is; Are there Angels?
Yet another is; How many tried to dance there but couldn't get past the bouncer on the door?
You may not believe it but
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
They have been remarkably uninterested in attacking Westerners who did not meddle in Arab countries anyway.
we have always been remarkably uninterested in attacking anyone who hasn't annoyed us unnecessarily. We're not really warlike at all -- but we sure do react to provocation...
As for this:
Quote:
Hmm, AQ and others being declared to be "terrorists" killed more U.S.Americans since 9/11 than during 9/11 and did multiple times as much economic damage. I'd rate that as "attacked". OK, counter-"attacked".
We have killed far more of them than they us -- but that's an extremely silly and meaningless metric (other than to those dead and wounded and their families). Seriously.
It was and is a matter of principle. The issue was not subject to a cost benefit study, it was to deter attacks on the US and US interests and to decrease the ability and interest of anyone to pursue such attacks. There was, is and will be a cost to do that. We're paying it. So are they. We can pay more than they can. So they're dumb -- being dumb doesn't mean they aren't dangerous. Not being warlike doesn't mean we aren't dangerous; more dangerous at that...
As for the economic damage, again disagree -- it's not damage, it's simply a cost. Again we're paying it.
The neat thing is that since we and a few others are paying those costs, you don't have to. Before you say had we and those others not gone blundering into the ME no one would have to pay anything, I suggest you give that aspect some very serious -- and long range -- thought. Most of our immigrants assimilate pretty well...