Using technology to stop terrorism

It's obvious to me that the "war on terrorism" has been an abject waste of time and effort. Does anyone really believe that the Iraq War, which is now entering its seventh year, has made the world safer from terrorist whackos? Does anyone really doubt that any deranged idiot can't still walk onto a university campus or shopping mall and start shooting? How has that ridiculous war made those scenarios any less likely?

It seems to me that the solution to ensuring our security does not lie in continuing with politicians' grudge matches halfway around the world, which clearly isn't working, but rather with technology.

What we need is inexpensive, simple-to-operate equipment to detect weapons, that can easily be installed anywhere, from churches to schools to nightclubs to shopping malls. Obviously, since I'm not an engineer, I have no idea how such equipment would work. But I have no doubt that if the might of American technological know-how were unleashed on the problem, it could be solved within a year's time.

Instead of employing the best and brightest technological minds to design new plasma TV sets, or newer and better fighter jets, why not set them to task on anti-terrorism devices?

Just a thought.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. The "War on Terror" doesn't make me feel any safer at all. I feel as if the entire ordeal is rather obscene and exaggerated to much extent. I believe it is only to show Americans that our government is "working hard to make us feel safe", to buy more trust. It's also a good means of instilling fear and panic among it's citizens, which is an effective method of control. In fact, the "threat of terrorism" is what spawned and justified the Patriot Act, which walks a thin line between making us safe and taking our rights.

To me, it is all just an exaggerated problem to boost our governments appeal, or lack there of, upon "saving us from this dire threat". I mean, no WMD's, no completely self-sustaining government in Iraq, no Osama Bin Laden, and we still have thousands overseas...it's been 7 years now!? Much of it now just seems pointless and unjustified to me.

 

What, like, erm metal detectors?

 

Metal detectors are relatively inexpensive and simple to operate. Many public schools have them; I have no idea why some schools still don't. The big problem in a place like a shopping mall is that people aren't willing to go through the airport routine of putting all their keys, change, etc. into the little basket every time they go in, and I don't really blame them.

Maybe someday computers will be smart enough to look at an image of a gun and identify it every time. The remaining problem is that metal detectors don't produce an image, 3D or otherwise. That still involves X-rays, which we can't subject people to on a regular basis.

Even if both of those technical hurdles were resolved, how do you use the end product to protect a typical college campus? Early in the morning, you have thousands of cars and humans converging from every possible direction, all needing to get to class as quickly as possible. The true problem lies in its scale.

I do wish that I was seeing more bomb-sniffing dogs at work in public locations. It's an old and proven approach that does not significantly intrude on the daily activites of nondangerous people.

Can dogs be trained to identify gunpowder? I would think so.

Unfortunately, there are so many other oportunities for evil people to impact the infrastructure, especially utilities and transportation, using things that fit easily into a car. I could generate a long list of possibilities, but would not dare risk giving a specific idea to someone who might be willing to use it. Quite frankly, the fact that we have not experinced many such attacks makes me doubt the resolve of those making the threats.

 

Even if both of those technical hurdles were resolved, how do you use the end product to protect a typical college campus?

I have no idea. But surely you aren't saying that it can't be done. Let's not restrict our thinking to existing methods. I fully expect that the best solution may come from some technology that doesn't even exist yet, or perhaps does exist but simply hasn't been fully exploited. It may have nothing to do with putting your keys into the little basket. And isn't that usually the way it goes?

We've got legions of brilliant, creative people in this country. Our universities and engineering firms are full of some of the brightest technical minds in the world. Let's put them to work on this problem, instead of the generals and the politicians.

Generals and politicians are very good at some things, but coming up with innovative approaches to thorny problems isn't one of them.

 

Engineers employed by a large defense subcontractor are probably working on the problem right now. If so, the project would surely be classified. The potential profit from such a product would be significant.

We do have the engineering talent to tackle pretty much anything that is technically feasible, but speed is a real problem. Modern, sophisticated design projects require the coordinated efforts of large engineering teams. Communication between humans to put all the pieces together is still a daunting task, even with modern software tools that make sharing technical information much easier. As a design concept grows and progresses, many details have to be discussed and rethought. This takes time that we don't really have, in this case.

 

the Hubble telescope can fire a laser out its ass, if it could see anything bigger than a dime on a donkeys ass on earth..
but they dont use the donkeys to plant the bombs on the bus..


wacki iraqis dont trust em, if they have teh donkey.. ;p

 

This takes time that we don't really have, in this case.

It's been seven years. Time's up. You're too pessimistic, NotDead. And your Defense contractors are exactly the types you don't want doing this. Want you want to do is assemble a handful of the brightest, sharpest, most innovative thinkers you can find, and challenge them to solve this problem. No red tape, no endless layers of management. Have them report directly to Homeland Security, or hell, even the President.

Give them whatever they ask for, then get out of their way.

Don't even try to tell me they couldn't do it.

 

The think tank that you have in mind might be able to come up with a good concept, but they would not be able to take it further. That takes infrastructure, an organization, and insightful, experienced management. You find that in companies that have designed the Stealth Bomber, laser-guided bombs accurate down to 12 inches, and cruise missiles accurate to within 3 feet over 600 miles. These people know how to get stuff done.

I'm talking about the engineering staff, not upper management, which is the defense contractors' public face. It is the Dick Cheney management-types that give those companies a horrible reputation. Those guys barely understand the basic concepts of engineering. They pretty much say to the engineers, do whatever you need to do to make us a lot of money, and do it fast. The managers tend to hire top-notch design talent because they can justify the expense.

Management everywhere, in all types of companies, assumes that anything can be done fast, with enough money and employee freedom in the engineering department. That isn't always true. Thomas Edison took a long time getting the first light bulb ready for prime time. He was the president of his own company, so he set the budget and the staffing priorities. He knew that other inventors were working on competitive products, so he moved things along as best he could. It was his personal pet project.

People constantly use the Apollo lunar program as a counterexample, but I'm not sure what that success really proves. A lot of things came together at the right time to make that work out. Sure, the unlimited budget was nice, but decades of effort in related fields laid the groundwork for this big step. I think some of those scientists actually came into the project a step ahead of the state of the art, just waiting for funding on a larger scale.

NASA had the grand vision, but who did they turn to, to get things built? Defense contractors. They designed (at the detail level) and built things unlike anything they had built before, because NASA had the funding for it, and had a feasible concept framework.

Disclaimer: I have never worked for a defense contractor. I am just an engineer who used to follow the non-military side of the space program very closely.

 

I am just an engineer who used to follow the non-military side of the space program very closely.

And I used to own (with my ex-husband) a small software development company. I realize that making software is different because it doesn't involve building a thing ... or "something you can kick", as Samuel Johnson once said.

Nonetheless, the management concept is the same. Put together a skunk works, give them a vision, challenge them to solve something, and get the hell out of the way. If you've pulled together the right people, they can do near-miracles.

 

I strongly agree. Hiring isn't everything in business, but it's damn close.

Cali, have you noticed that we're starting to sound like an old married couple? Half the time, we don't agree on shit, but nobody gets mad!

 

i've got an idea:

Let's have a separation of Science and State, eh?

Free up Science to save us, instead of constantly trying to direct it onto pathes that will kill us.

Yep. i'd vote for that!

 

Oh, yeah! And there are "scent/substance" detectors (if CSI is to be believed! :rofl that would be MOST UNinvasive, should be relatively inexpensive (only have a set-up that would detect major stuff, like radiation emissions and gun powder/explosives), and actually keep us safe.

Just my 2¢.

 

Hey! They're ALREADY using 'em!!!

http://www.scent-tech.com/index.aspx?id=3099&itemID=2281

Damn!!! That was a really good idea... Oh, well... Back to the drawing board... :rofl:

 

No,no,no we don't need anymore of this microscope up the ass bullshit. Our rights to privacy have been eroded enough already.


We need to address the reasons for terrorism.

It is known that we (U.S) supplied Saddam with weapons and intelligence practically up until the the day of the invasion, the CIA trained and backed Alciada, and much more etc.... this fuckin' bullshit has to stop.


We are still the safest, most free country on the face of the earth.
We have avenues for change available to us unparalleled anywhere in the world.

We need to raise awareness about the REAL causes of terrorism, somehow get a REAL democracy, and elect political leaders that do not participate in terrorism, Then we may be able to reduce the small amount of terrorism that is aimed at the U.S.
At least we got Bush out. That may help a little. Getting the fuck out of Afghanistan and Iraq would help more. IMHO




ZW eace:

 

They do exist, and they are being used by the TSA in some airports to detect explosives in checked baggage. The absurd thing about the current use of this technology is that the machines are no more effective than dogs, and much more expensive. Of course, the price of the machines will surely come down over time.

Less certain is whether or not they will ever work outdoors, where the wind often blows in the wrong direction.

 

Who said anything about microscopes or privacy? Once again, I'm talking about cheap, easy-to-use, non-invasive technology to detect weapons. My point is that with all the brilliant, creative technical minds in this country, surely we can come up with some technology to do that.

Don't limit your thinking. Don't make assumptions about it ... maybe it's an improved metal detector, maybe not. Maybe it's something that's totally unheard of today. Who knows? But I refuse to believe it can't be done.

We need to raise awareness about the REAL causes of terrorism,

Well, I don't disagree in principle, but what would you say was the "real" cause of the Oklahoma City bombing, or the shootings at Virginia Tech or Salt Lake City or the church in Illinois? Who knows what goes on in the minds of extremist whackos? These people aren't rational ... you can't predict what they're going to do.

So isn't it better to stop these incidents at the point of attack? That way it doesn't matter what the "cause" is.

 

I strongly agree, but we may not live long enough to reap the benefits of that approach. Islamic fundamentalists generally like to hold grudges for past wrongs for 1000 years. That means that they will be ready to move on and get beyond the actions of George W. in January of 3009.

I used to work with a guy from Iran who hated a guy in our department from India because of some war that took place several hundred years ago. And they both thought I was a wimp because I didn't want to take sides!

 

I'm not sure about the OKC bombing, I seem to remember there being a connection there, to a middle eastern terrorist or another.

I didn't address those other things you mentioned because I don't think they are terribly relevant. They are extremely isolated incidents and they are very rare. As you implied, they are psycopathic criminals and you can't predict what they will do. Statisticaly, I think you should be more worried about getting killed in a car wreck or getting hit by a bus.

I have no doubt they are working on thought recognition technology.
Pre-crime anyone?




http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/2008/08/18/us-mil-funding-mindreading-technology-programme.asp

The scientists carrying out the research hail from three universities in the US and, together, are analyzing signals produced by the brain in an attempt to decode human thoughts, as well as the intended recipient of the message being created.

Here's another technology threatening our privacy; Facial identification.

http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/facialrecog.html (full article)

Are Privacy Rights of Citizens Being Eroded Wholesale?

By Angela Jarvis

Facial identification is the fastest growing biometric technology today. According to many industry experts, it is also the most controversial of all biometrics. Despite their lingering questions regarding the practical usefulness of facial identification technology, law enforcement and military facial identification systems have been in place for several years without arousing too much controversy. According to industry insiders, this is because these applications have proven quite successful in carrying out specific objectives and the public is often unaware of these uses. Although facial recognition technology has not been proven to be an accurate and effective way of identifying terrorists or wanted suspects, some of the proposed post-September 11 uses of the technology – such as in immigration and airport security – have been welcomed by the general public. Are we too eager to buy into a new technology without clearly evaluating its effectiveness and without weighing the potential harms involved with its use?

 

Sorry, Zombie, but i vehemently disagree ~ i don't give a rat's banana about the reasons,

i DO care about the outcomes of the 'missions,'

and, like the OP, believe that there HAS to be a way:

A simple,

inexpensive

WAY

to detect explosives.

BTW ~ the scent detectors i posted the link to? Are hand-held, so wind shouldn't be too much of a problem. (i took it to be like a dog ~ small and portable, without "the need to be peed." )

Also, i'm sort of surprised that no one jumped on my Separation of Science and State thing,

which actually would free the scientists up to do "good" works, of their own choosing, without having to worry about grants, or "orders" to the contrary.

Well, seemed like a pretty good idea to me...