The recent news has been full of both accidents and terrorist acts which we ought to be taking as a sign, as a big finger pointing out what should be obvious. That is to say that certain elements of the public transportation structure of our nation are incredibly vulnerable to terrorist attacks, which could be particularly devastating in their cost in human life, expense and inconvenience.
Take as examples the terrorist attacks yesterday in Mumbai, where subways and busses were targeted, and the similar attacks in London - one year earlier almost to the day - and in Madrid the year before that. These attacks were all particularly effective, not only because of the destruction of life and property, but because they were impossible for the population to easily take in stride, leaving a permanent legacy of inconvenience and reconstruction which continued for months after the actual attacks. They shut down major cities for a couple of days, caused lost days at work and cost a great deal in rebuilding transportation infrastructure.
Other recent events have shown that the transportation infrastructure in the United States is just as vulnerable. The derailment on the EL in Chicago shows how much inconvenience, damage and injury can be caused by a simple mechanical failure. In addition to crushing a car and killing a young woman, the recent partial collapse in the Big Dig Tunnel in Boston paralyzed commuted traffic for days. Try a Google search for 'tunnel collapse'. they don't get that much publicity, but in the last few years there have been major tunnel collapses in China, England, India, Spain and the United States as well as other countries. Bridge collapses have also been in the news. 9/11 overshadowed it, but a few days after the attack there was a horrendous bridge collapse in Texas when a barge hit the bridge connecting South Padre Island to the mainland causing a collapse. A few month later a virtually identical accident collapsed the I-40 Bridge in Oklahoma. Both of these incidents had enormous costs in inconvenience and loss of revenue. As transportation infrastructure ages, the vulnerable elements like tunnels and bridges become more and more vulnerable to natural forces and to man made threats.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave, this is a very interesting topic you have chosen and more relevant than most people realize. It's late here and I'm tired, but I'll be returning to this topic another time.
I hope you folks don't get distracted into waving the Bill of Rights around and the "evils of the present administration". This is a serious topic and ought to be treated with some gravity.
2 - Nancy
Good article. I think this ties in with another current thread, in that we just can NOT keep allowing ourselves to be stampeded by politicos of any party, with an eye towards whatever agenda they're pursuing, when they start yelling about terrorists, attacks on US soil, etc. etc.
Tunnels, bridges, roads, you name it, are flimsy & prone to damage just by their nature - especially in light of the fact that a good many of them are now 'old' and well-worn. Nothing lasts forever, and certainly nothing man-made (except trash) lasts forever.
As far as national security is concerned, IMO a national ID system is inevitable, and probably the very best insurance & deterrant to unauthorized persons & would-be terrorists - but ONLY if possession of illegal or stolen IDs is penalized so heavily it will literally be worth someone's life to be in possession. Otherwise, it's just opening another set of floodgates.
I think maybe a Fortress America mentality might be a good thing; we've been far too fast & loose about open borders, thus far.
3 - Clavos
I think a national ID is an extremely bad idea (it may even be unconstitutional). The government (and others) is already collecting way too much info about all of us. Instituting a national ID card would just make data collection even easier, while providing little, if any additional security.
And, rather than a Fortress America approach, I think we should continue to try to preempt terrorists as much as possible, and as Dave writes, consider the option of accepting the occasional blowing up of a bridge, tunnel, etc.
4 - Dave Nalle
Dave, this is a very interesting topic you have chosen and more relevant than most people realize. It's late here and I'm tired, but I'll be returning to this topic another time.
I look forward to hearing more from you, Ruvy, especially about the last part. My observation is that the Israelis have come to terms with the constant threat of terrorism and the need to live life despite it in a very real way, and I think we could learn a lot from them. Americans just don't understand that life in Israel or Iraq may actually be fairly normal even if there's the occasional (or daily) bombing or sniping. It's too far outside of our pampered experience.
Dave
5 - Dave Nalle
I'm with you on the national ID, Clavos. But from what I've read we're going to effectively have one by 2008 with some sort of biometrics required, either a retinall scan or a fingerprint. That's very troubling.
Dave
6 - troll
that's the kind of 'socialism' that worries me...
7 - troll
I think that we're going to start seeing lots of apologetic propaganda along the lines of this 'realistic' post...
terrorism - ?
get used to it...
why - ?
because we lost the unwinable 'war'
troll
8 - Lumpy
Seemed to me more like we need to get used to terrorism because it's an inevitable part of life. Americans have lived a pampered and isolated life and that couldn't last forever. The ironic part is that if the government cracks down on our rights to stop foreign terrorists it will probably create a whole new generation of timothy mcveighs.
9 - Clavos
It is indeed troubling, Dave. I had no idea it was as close as 2008-I thought it was still only at the debate stage.
I value my privacy as a very important part of my freedom; the idea of yet another government intrusion is really anathema. It's nothing less than a major step towards Big Brother.
10 - Dave Nalle
Clavos, as you may have heard they sort of backdoored the national ID thing by passing standards for state IDs to make them compatible nationwide, so instead of a national ID we'll just have state IDs which are all identical and meet the same standards, which ultimately will include biometrics as well as a photo and the other usual stuff. Which is effectively the same as having a national ID.
Dav
11 - Victor Plenty
We already have a national ID system. It just lacks every possible measure to securely link it to one person and only one person. I refer, of course, to the Social Security number, which is already the de facto identification code for anyone legally employed inside the United States, despite arcane legalistic assurances to the contrary.
If a stronger national ID system makes identity theft harder to commit and easier to recover from, millions of Americans will welcome it, even if they admit it won't make much difference against terrorism.
If we ever fully embrace the folly of a "Fortress America" mentality, a national ID card will be quite low on the list of our troubles.
12 - Clavos
Victor, Of course you're right about the SSN. But the element you left out is that except for employment/tax purposes, we can't be forced to provide our SSNs as ID. With a national ID, that option will be gone.
I'm somewhat obsessed by it I admit, but I think the government (especially the Feds) intruding in our lives and collecting data on us is a greater threat to all of us as individuals than ID theft or even terrorism.
13 - Dave Nalle
Clavos, you're living in a dream world. Plenty of organizations force you to use your SSN just by refusing to provide services if you don't give it to them. Various state agencies here in Texas operate that way, as do banks and credit card companies.
dave
14 - Clavos
Dave, Providing your SSN to financial companies and government agencies is, as you say, unavoidable. As a matter of principle, I refuse everyone else. Some yield, some don't; often, I walk, and find a less demanding competitor.
15 - Michael J. West
Of course, there is one other option. We could accept that a certain level of vulnerability to terrorist attack is part of life and the price that we pay for convenience.
Maybe that was one of the lessons we should have learned from Oklahoma City and 9/11? That we're just never going to be completely unthreatened by terrorism?
16 - Dave Nalle
But Clavos, how do you walk when it's required to get a driver's license or a necessary permit from the state government?
And I agree Michael, I think many people have an unrealistic expectation that the government can provide them with safety and make everything alright no matter what threats we face. Seems unhealthy to me.
Dave
17 - Clavos
Dave, One can't always walk--as I said above, "often" I walk--it's mainly making a point anyway; I know I'm not going to stop the juggernaut, but it gives me satisfaction to refuse when I can.
18 - Clavos
Dave, I guess you could call it my personal windmill.
Quixote, aka Clavos
19 - Jet in Columbus
Obviously Bush wants us to pay attention to the potential of a terrorist attack because we'd all hark back to a time when we all suppported him.
The money would be better spent repairing the damned bridges instead of protecting them. Why worry about terrorists, when rust will do the work for them?
Solus mei sententia
Jet
20 - Dave Nalle
I can just see the laid back terrorists who use entropy as their main weapon.
Dave
21 - Victor Plenty
They wait for bridges to collapse, then claim responsibility.
22 - Dave Nalle
I was thinking there should be a big ceremony surrounding the placing of an invisible 'entropy bomb', followed by long-term observation of its devastating effects 60 or 70 years down the road.
Dave
23 - Jet in Columbus
How could I have rephrased that to show I was being serious. The condition of America's bridges and infastructure is in real crisis, and we're wasting money on some terrorist that "might" come and get us like the boogie man?
24 - Dave Nalle
I know, you have a valid point, Jet. But that doesn't mean we can't have fun with it.
The whole Katrina disaster was largely the result of infrastructure failure - in that case more the result of corruption and misdirection of funds than lack of support. Clearly Louisiana isn't the only state with such problems.
dave
25 - Clavos
The whole Katrina disaster was largely the result of infrastructure failure
...the seeds of which were first sown decades earlier, when the US Army Corps of Engineers built those levees that gave way.
It's interesting to take a look at the Corps and some of its works, because it is a major player in the construction and maintenance of significant elements of the nation's infrastructure. Even a cursory look reveals their track record is not great; the NOLA levees are but one example.
It was the Corps of Engineers which, during the first several decades of the twentieth century, began to dig canals at the behest of state and federal politicians, who were themselves suborned by developers, to drain the Everglades. They were so successful that two thirds of that unique ecosystem is now lost. They've finally realized their error and are now trying to restore as much as possible of the 'Glades, but of course, development has occupied most of the drained land.
And it was the Corps that "straightened" the course of the Kissimmee River several decades ago--this time at the behest of central Florida politicians and Disney, again so wetlands could be drained and developed. Once again, too late the error was realized, and now millions of tax dollars are being spent to restore the Kissimmee back to its original, winding bed.
And now that same Corps is "rebuilding" those levees in NOLA--huh.