Comment by darpa_escapee | Hacker News Reader

Comment by darpa_escapee | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Terrorists are an existential threat, but our society doesn't have just one bogeyman: they are around every corner to scare us into doing things we wouldn't normally do. Remember, the terrorists manufacture drugs to sell to us and if you buy drugs you are supporting terrorism.

That said, I think it might subside for different reasons.

The demographics of drug addiction are changing. Addictive drug use went from being primarily a poor minority inner city epidemic to something affecting affluent white kids, professionals with bad backs and the elderly. The road from Oxycontin to heroin is a well documented phenomenon[1] that has become all too familiar with the people who pushed for severe punishments for drug crimes.

If your kid could be facing 10 years in jail because he was charged with the intent to distribute a bag of heroin, and that same situation is playing out in towns all over America, suddenly the wheels of change get greased.

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/heroin-...

> Terrorists are an existential threat

Give me a break. I've never heard a more hyperbolic statement even from diehard warmongers.

There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security. Even several orders of magnitude more attacks a year would be barely a blip in terms of actual casualties.

> Give me a break. I've never heard a more hyperbolic statement even from diehard warmongers.

There are sizable portions of the US and Europe that believe muslims are terrorist sympathizers who want to enact Sharia law. To them terrorists, immigrants and muslims are existential threats: they want to blow them up, take their jobs and run their lives and government.

> There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security.

I agree.

> There are sizable portions of the US and Europe that believe muslims are terrorist sympathizers who want to enact Sharia law.

Sure, and there are millions of people who believe all sorts of nutty things. Millions of people believe that stars predict the future or that aliens regularly abduct people. That doesn't mean we should legitimize these beliefs.

Acknowledging that a bogeyman exists as a bogeyman doesn't legitimize the belief that a bogeyman is real.

It does if you refer to the bogeyman without pointing out that it's false. You said terrorists are an existential threat, not that some (crazy) people think they are.

I understand your point but as a New Yorker, an order of magnitude greater would be 20 buildings or a nigh-complete distruction of downtown. Sorry if my comment is emotion driven but the above comment seems very cold.

Edit: just reread your comment and several orders is 200 buildings?

I'm not saying that terrorism isn't bad. Obviously it would be upsetting, but to be clear: an order of magnitude more terrorism would be a 9/11-level attack every year. Even with that catastrophic level, NYC would still survive. I understand this is an emotional topic (especially living here) but it's impossible to pretend that terrorism is an "existential" threat.

Realistically, as cold as this sounds, a terrorist attack which managed to level downtown would not even pose an existential threat to the US.

I concur with your assessment regarding human lives. That said, I think it's also important to take into account the effects those attacks have had on American society, such as the reduction of civil liberties, the increase in surveillance, and the changes in US foreign policy which have changed the position of the US in the world. These are significant. What would effect would additional attacks have? Yes, these are reactions rather than direct action, but at this point they've been frighteningly predictable. One could argue that this is an existential threat to the US as we know it, even if it isn't existential in terms of human lives, or in the country per se.

That's a fair point, but it's not what people who talk about the "existential threat" of terrorists are talking about. They're usually the ones pushing for more surveillance.

More terrorism might change the nature of US democracy, but it will still be the US.

Terrorists do threaten national security, but very rarely provide an existential threat. It's hard to imagine a terrorist group causing the collapse of the USA.

> It's hard to imagine a terrorist group causing the collapse of the USA.

It's actually not that hard to imagine: dirty bomb set off in midtown Manhattan, kills thousands and sickens tens of thousands. In its hasty reply, the US launches a massive counterstrike against somewhere based on shoddy intel. Putin says, oh hell no, and red buttons are pushed. That's game over folks.

> There is no conceivable way that terrorists threaten our national existence/security.

This statement surprises me. Especially your talk of casualties. I think you miss something important about "terrorism". It is far more than raw casualty numbers. It is about the "fear and uncertainty" they generate in a populace. And that, to me, is a threat to any modern nation's existence, in a world whose economy depends a lot on things like "confidence" and "optimism".

Perhaps I misunderstand developed nations, but from my point of view, your statement seems alarmingly absurd.

What's the conceivable scenario where even heightened levels of "fear and uncertainty" lead to the collapse of the USA?

Also keep in mind that people are already extraordinarily pessimistic and unconfident about the country.

How do you define "collapse of the USA"? Dissolution? Fall of the government? Effective dictatorship? Widespread police state? Something else?

I'd say the end to constitutional governance would be a good definition. That'd be included in all your scenarios except the police state.

As much as I'd hate to live in a police state, I don't think you can call that the "collapse of the USA." China is very much alive.

I think many Americans would no longer consider the USA the same country if it were a police state. It would be the US in name only.

Eh, we're a country that also allowed slavery for decades and only allowed a minority of citizens to vote for most of its history. I'm willing to embrace an expansive definition of the "US."

allowed slavery for decades

And doesn't anymore.

only allowed a minority of citizens to vote for most of its history

And now does.

These are both examples of how the US has improved over time. I would be very surprised to see a reversal on either of these. If there were, people would similarly question whether it was still the US in anything but name, even if this had been the situation in the past.

> Remember, the terrorists manufacture drugs to sell to us and if you buy drugs you are supporting terrorism.

You're being sarcastic, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com