On “Fifth Generation” Warfare? #3

Mitigation further includes:

3. Remove the easier and deadlier weapons that are simply “out-there” to use. Focus on removing opportunities, not just people. For example improvement of rail rather than so many short-hop commuter flights. If there are fewer “fuel-air bombs” in the air, the situation becomes easier to control. The fact that there still are full flights between destinations less than 500 miles away is a continuing sign of failure. Look for possibilities of attacks that might have mass impact and take steps to make them physically much less likely without crippling society itself. You can't remove all the possibilities but you can make it much harder to do anything of significance.

This approach has the right idea, but would require a massive re-evaluation of technological and societal priorities. It would also require a steep monetary price tag. Building a continental railroad would not be cheap. The better method might be to focus on social inclusion so as to discourage or identify threats beforehand.

The author continues:

Much of this surely sounds like what has come before; The same old terrorism? Not exactly. There is a point where criminality, pathology and technology will meet in a way that makes geography and politics irrelevant. Now it has to have been shown that bigger things than a shot, a bomb, or hijackings are possible, much bigger things magnified by the attentions of the “great public eye” and an ever more frightened public mind.

Verbal Worlds can be magnified for many different purposes. Those created by mass media can be eliminated by eliminating mass media. No attention means no effect. This could be accomplished by different means. Isn't logic grand?

He concludes:

The difference lies in the goals. A classic insurgent, guerrilla or fourth generation enemy has a material-political-social goal in mind. The new problems may be initiated by people who are little more than stalkers, fire starters, narcissists and misfits who wish to see themselves writ larger than life across the psycho-social landscape of the earth and now have been shown that they certainly have the means available of doing so. The difference between a traditional mass enemy and a dangerous individual has the possibility of rapidly disappearing.

Unless certain hard choices are made, I agree. Keep in mind, the real danger does not lie with the action but rather the reaction. The herd is a tool and may be discarded.