
The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On - duck
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/the-boston-marathon-bombing-keep-calm-and-carry-on/275014/
======
mikestew
I ran the prestigious marathon for the first time yesterday. I had a good
race, set a new best time for recent years, and had a great experience. The
only thing I would have been able to do yesterday was give blood, and that
apparently wasn't needed. So there's nothing I can do, and fretting and
worrying isn't going to change anything. Walking around scared isn't going to
prevent anything. I sympathize with those affected, from those who lost
friends and family to the thousands who were not allowed to finish the race.
What I won't do is make the bombing the primary memory of the race. Sorry,
bombers, you're not taking that away. I'll allow it to stand as a seperate,
tragic event in my mind and deal with it from there.

Today my wife and I will go walk the Freedom Trail just as we planned. Maybe
we won't get into some (or any) of the monuments, but we're doing it
regardless. I mean, what else are we supposed to do, huddle in our hotel room
until our flight tomorrow? The breakfast place a block south of the closed off
crime scene is open, so we're off to go get some food now.

~~~
nraynaud
read "Boston Massacre" memorial plate. The wording is interesting (at least
for a foreigner).

~~~
chii
what does it say on it, if you can recall?

~~~
nraynaud
That they mobbed some soldiers who openend fire and killed five. With a real
effort on painting the soldiers in a negative light, and the mob in a positive
light.

My head was screaming: "in Vietnam, Iraq or Afganistan there would be medals
for that, this is all about spinning the news".

~~~
mullingitover
Fun fact, the British soldiers who fired on the civilians were (fairly
successfully) defended by future US President John Adams.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_adams#Boston_Massacre>

------
untog
It was a great moment of national pride for me (which are rare in the UK) in
the wake of the 7/7/2005 bombings. People were back on the Tube and buses the
next day, refusing to allow their lives to be disrupted further. I've always
taken solace from those people- I hope that the people of Boston can be
equally inspiring.

~~~
sheri
Let me offer a different opinion. There was a series of bomb blasts in Mumbai
in 1993. Thirteen different explosions in the span of a few hours across the
city's landmarks. 250 people died. One of the blasts was in the Bombay stock
exchange. This was on a Friday, and the stock exchange opened for business on
Monday. This was a huge PR win for Mumbai, as the media talked about the
resilience of the residents and the manner in which they moved on and didn't
let it impact their lives.

It's now 20 years and several terrorist attacks and bomb-blasts have gone by.
Mumbai still carries on, but there is no pride in doing that anymore. Everyone
just wants it to stop. It's been easy for the government to quickly clean up
and talk about how terrorism doesn't impact us. The Mumbai residents keep
calm, but no one wants to move on like this.

~~~
bconway
Exactly this. Holding your head high is not a response to terrorism.

~~~
chii
Then what is? What is the average citizen to do, other than refuse to be
terrorized?

------
carbocation
I think for HN it's worth noting, perhaps in the title, that this article is
written by Bruce Schneier.

~~~
AVTizzle
Because I needed to look it up, too:

"Bruce Schneier an American cryptographer, computer security specialist, and
writer. He is the author of several books on general security topics, computer
security and cryptography."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier>

~~~
gizmo686
If you ask me to name a cryptographer, Scheier is by far the first one that
comes to mind. Also, in my experience, his book, Applied Cryptography, is by
far the most reccomended book for people new to crypto.

~~~
tptacek
Applied Cryptography is a terrible reference. Please don't recommend it to
programmers. Instead, recommend Practical Cryptography / Cryptography
Engineering (they're the same book), which Schneier co-authored with Niels
Fergusen.

 _Update: I said "terrible book" but I'm going to start being more precise
about this. It's not a terrible "book"; I enjoyed the hell out of it when I
was a teenager. It's just misleading and dangerous._

~~~
chii
Not having read (nor the time and inclination to read) the book, what is so
bad about it, and what is the difference with the one you do recommend?

~~~
tptacek
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=639786>

------
afhof
Its too bad that most people don't have a basic appreciation of statistics or
probability. Its too bad Schneier only spends a tiny paragraph on it: "Even
though this will be in the news for weeks, we should recognize this for what
it is: a rare event".

The chance that a person will die from a bombing, or be shot, or their plane
crash, or a hurricane kill them is so small that there is almost NO reason to
be afraid of it. It is far more likely that a person will die of Heart disease
or cancer than any of the above. What will almost certainly kill us, we
accept. What is almost inconsequential to us, we abhor.

~~~
rayiner
People don't react to terrorism because they're afraid of being blown up
personally. They do it because they're afraid of the precedent that might be
set by not responding.

It's statistically unlikely that you'll be the victim of gang violence, but
does that mean it's irrational prosecute and punish gang members? No, because
the activity threatens social stability vastly out of proportion with the
probability of any given person being victim to it. In general, we punish
crimes not because it's likely that we'll be the victims of one, but because
if we don't the problem might grow out of hand and undermine civil order.

~~~
timr
#citationneeded

Really now. I don't need to go much beyond the evening news to know that
people spend a lot of time being afraid of things that aren't likely to
happen. (What don't you know about your toothbrush that could kill you?
Probably very little.)

Your model of humanity is one that's much more rational and thoughtful than
what I've come to expect from my neighbors. Nobody is scared of a decline in
social stability; they're scared of getting shot or robbed or blown up.
Usually by people who look different than they do.

~~~
rayiner
Listen to Obama's speech on the issue. It's targeted to calm the average
American. Listen to the word he uses to characterize the administration's
response: justice. What does "justice" mean in this context? It means nothing
other than the government's response to activity that threatens social
stability and psychologically remedy the injuries created by actions that
upset social stability.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
What does the War in Iraq or having to remove one's shoes before boarding an
aircraft have to do with justice?

I don't think anyone is making the argument that there should be no justice.
Prosecuting the criminals who commit murder for the purpose of terrorism is
clearly a "no reasonable person could disagree" sort of a thing.

But the question remains, how is justice won? In theory we could impose
martial law and suspend elections, or permanently shut all the roads and
trains and prohibit gatherings of more than five people in the same place, or
nuke the entire middle east. Perhaps doing those things could bring justice to
more terrorists.

Well before we reach that point, we come to a line we should not cross. We
come to a choice that will cost us more of our humanity than it gains us in
justice. And whipping the public into a frenzy is how popular support for
crossing the line we should not cross is manufactured.

~~~
rayiner
All that is really irrelevant to my point, whixh is that the nature of the
word "justice" shows that people are concerned about social order, not just
the individual likelihood of being killed. One can argue about the extent to
which any given response helps maintain order.

That's why people care about "justice" for murderers even though more people
are killed by auto accidents. Murder upsets the social order. A car accident
doesn't.

------
rurounijones
Glad this got posted quickly.

I can already see the glee in intelligence / law enforcement agencys' eyes as
they think how they can use this latest incident as reasoning for more over-
arching powers.

For a long time Londoners had to put up with IRA bombs but "Kept calm and
carried on" (to use the phrase). I hope the US can follow suit.

[EDIT] Changed "secret service" to "intelligence / law enforcement agencies"
to avoid confusion.

~~~
MrFoof
>I can already see the glee in intelligence / law enforcement agencys' eyes as
they think how they can use this latest incident as reasoning for more over-
arching powers.

I think this is my biggest concern.

Once in a while at the Back Bay subway/commuter rail/Amtrak station you will
occasionally see Boston Police officers - sometimes accompanied by TSA agents
- set up at the station, some of which are carrying submachine guns (MP5s).
We're not talking one or two officers, but somewhere between half a dozen and
a a dozen, several of which have the automatic weaponry at the ready.

On two occasions, I've asked one of the officers, _"Hey, what's going on?"_.
In one case it was simply a training exercise. In another, they were looking
for a "person of interest".

In general, I don't want to be at a transit station trying to get home on the
subway where there is a situation in which the officers feel the use of that
kind of force is necessary, especially considering the fact that I can't
recall a single situation in the time I've lived here where the use of
submachine guns would've ever been justified.

~~~
theorique
But doesn't it make you feel safe?

~~~
katbyte
Police generally do not make me feel safe because i never know when i'm going
to break some silly law i may or may not know about or observe (ala
jaywalking, biking without a helmet) and get cited/jailed for it, or even
worse deal with some cop getting his power trip on who takes it to far.

~~~
theorique
I guess as a white guy with short hair, I just assume the cops are there for
me.

~~~
katbyte
I'm a white girl, and while i get surprising amount of leeway with the police
i'm under no delusions of the power advantage cops have over everyone else.

drinking in the park (its illegal here) or speeding, Friends with the cop or
she likes you? no problem. Cop doesn't like you? ticket or drunk tank or
worse.

They are there for you, if your friends with them or they like you.

~~~
theorique
Yeah, definitely. Tucker Max had a good piece on how to deal with cops:
<http://tuckermax.me/how-to-deal-with-cops-2/>

------
MichaelApproved
_"It turns out that terrorism is much harder than most people think. It's hard
to find willing terrorists, it's hard to put a plot together, it's hard to get
materials, and it's hard to execute a workable plan. As a collective group,
terrorists are dumb, and they make dumb mistakes; criminal masterminds are
another myth from movies and comic books."_

He is very wrong. He is confusing foot soldiers with their leaders. Terrorist
leaders are not dumb.

Yes, it's harder than we think but not for the reasons in the article. In
Israel, there was a wave of bombings every few days. The bombers were not
dumb. They were very successful and killed many people. I believe that it
wasn't until the borders got sealed tight that the bombings subsided. That's
why they had to resort to using Katyusha rockets but, believe me, if they
could get in the country, they'd blow things up, no problem.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan all have had regular waves of successful
suicide bombings.

What keeps the US relatively free of terrorism is the massive ocean that's
between the terrorists and their target. It makes an operation much harder to
execute because it's more remote from their base of operations. What we've
seen so far is the _evolution_ of their attempts to bridge that gap. The
author is confusing these early experiments with stupidity. The terrorists are
smart and they learn from the failures of their experiments. Eventually,
they'll get better at blowing things up from a distance. If we write them off
as dumb, we're going to be in for a surprise when they perfect their methods.

Edit: Israel is tiny and could control its borders much easier than Iraq,
Afganistan, Pakistan and the US. We see that Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan are
very vulnerable to terrorism because their borders are easy to penetrate. The
US has the advantage of an ocean defending its borders. Eventually, they'll
overcome that obstacle.

~~~
markdown
> What keeps the US relatively free of terrorism is the massive ocean that's
> between the terrorists and their target.

What keeps most countries relatively free from terrorism is that they aren't
occupying other peoples land or bombing their women and children all the way
to hell.

Ever wonder why extremists haven't bombed the Cook Islands or Peru?

~~~
rdouble
Peru has had tens of thousands of civilians killed in conflict with the
Shining Path.

~~~
markdown
TIL. However, a cursory skimming of the Wikipedia page seems to indicate that
it's an internal conflict.

Not really relevant to this discussion.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Quite relevant considering that no known terrorist organization actually obeys
a distinction between "internal" and "external". You say "legitimate nation-
state", they say, "bourgeois oppressive occupier". You say "reactionary
fascist regime" they say "glorious liberator". You say "death", they say
"glory".

------
nl
Speaking of which, here's the results. They are notable because a non-Kenyan
won for the first time in 3 years.

Men

Lelisa Desisa (Eth): 2:10:22

Micah Kogo (Ken): 2:10:27

Gebregziabher Gebremariam (Eth): ?

Women

Rita Jeptoo (Ken): 2:26:25

Meseret Hailu (Eth)

Sharon Cherop (Ken)

------
dutchbrit
Bruce mentions that one of the reasons why people should stay calm is that
terrorists are dumb. However, this could be the actions of a new Unabomber
(let us hope it isn't), who managed to go on a bombing streak for 18 years
without being caught. It's really too early to start making assumptions.

I say, don't keep calm and carry on, take this as an example that life can end
any second, just like that, out of nowhere. Live your life enjoying what you
do. Most of us don't, which is sad. If you're enjoying life to the fullest,
carry on. If you aren't living your life to the fullest, then no, don't just
'carry on'. Life is fragile, and this should be a reminder. I for one know, I
shouldn't 'carry on'. I need to improve my life.

Make the most out of your precious time.

~~~
GeorgeTirebiter
You are aware that "we" basically _created_ the Unabomber, yes?

[http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase.ht...](http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/06/chase.htm)

~~~
dutchbrit
Created or not, it's still plausible that this could happen again.

Good read btw!

------
perlgeek
One country that did it right was Norway. After shooting and bombing in 2011,
this is what the prime minister's reaction was:

> Stoltenberg further vowed that the attack would not hurt Norwegian
> democracy, and said the proper answer to the violence was "more democracy,
> more openness, but not naivety".

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Domestic>

Please, can we have such a sensible reaction everywhere?

------
squozzer
As much as I'd like to agree with the estimable Mr. Schneier, there's a part
of me who remembers watching "Brazil" and the scene where the restaurant blows
up and everyone just goes about their business. Later, if you remember, the
protagonist goes through the wringer for failing to have a proper form 27/6 on
a minor matter.

So why should we keep calm, not in the face of a terrorist attack, but knowing
that our government has priorities that differ from the people's?

Consider how much time and energy our government spends to stop file-sharing
and pot smoking, which despite what Nancy Reagan might have said, has not
contributed much of anything to the terrorist financial networks.

I'm not so sure the measures taken so far to prevent terrorism were even
designed for that purpose. Given the rotten state of government finances and
the US's overall economic decline, the massive surveillance apparatus under
construction seems better suited to preventing capital flight than plot
detection.

It's sort of like the massive fence that used to separate Czechoslovakia from
West Germany. The Czechs supposedly built it to keep NATO out, but the nuts
and bolts faced towards West Germany.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. And I wouldn't mind it one bit.

------
hiddenfeatures
As Bill Maher so eloquently put it: "Its horrible, but this time, let's not
overreact, wallow, erect monuments to terrorism; let's handle it Israeli-
Munich style" Source:
<https://twitter.com/billmaher/status/323951293506924544>

~~~
cup
By assassinating (and abusing due process) those responsible rather than
adressing the issues which continue to allow this circle of violence and
retaliatory action to continue ad nauseum.

~~~
lostlogin
I know you haven't said this, but due process hasn't been followed in prior
years - gitmo prisoners still languish in limbo.

------
bane
Talking with some friends we all were reminded, we've been in a constant state
of war for over a decade now (20 combined years if you think about in a
different way). There's a qualitative difference in the populace since 9/11.
The first responders in Boston were nurses who had been combat medics during
the height of the Iraq war -- people who had seen the same scene dozens of
times. Following them were soldiers in uniform who cleared the area of debris
to make evacuation easier. It's no doubt a reason the deaths were held to 3.

One of the major outcomes of WWI and WWII was a rapid advancement in trauma
surgery, with reconstructive surgery advancing decades almost overnight. It'll
be one of the enduring legacies of the Iraq and Afghan Wars that those who lot
their legs in this event will be running the marathon again.

------
yk
Reading this, the thought struck me that we should perhaps not think of
terrorism as violence, but rather as black hat PR. So TSA and GWOT are
actually no more helpful than a bad review for a movie.

------
ronnier
"Keep Calm and Carry On". This phrase from the British has peaked in recent
times.

[http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Calm%20and%20Carry%20...](http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Calm%20and%20Carry%20On)

A week hardly passes that I don't see it on a shirt, a coworkers wall, or in a
meme.

~~~
buro9
It certainly beats the prior poster in 1939 of "Freedom Is In Peril Defend It
With All Your Might".

------
Cieplak
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

~~~
ptaipale
BTW, as far as I understand, this quote is nowadays used in a way that rather
different or even contradicting with its original one. Originally, Franklin
was rallying up militia to take up arms against roving bands, or perhaps even
"extremists" as they might be called today.

So "purchasing safety" was "not joining armed forces that fight criminals and
enemies". This was before the revolution, and what Americans call "the
frontier" was in Pennsylvania.

------
seivan
Probably going to get very well down voted for this, but it hasn't stopped me
before.

It's not through terrorism they beat us. But through politics. Either twisting
the minds of the current leaders, or infecting political parties and slowly
implementing sharia - happening in Sweden, with our own tax money.

Forget gay and female civil rights.

~~~
no_more_death
Seivan, I apologize deeply for getting your comment off track, and I hope
others will not follow this further from your main point.

However, I would just offer a quick point of advice. Don't spend keystrokes
saying you might be down-voted for something. It's actually bolder to just say
what you're going to say. When you reference downvoting, you stigmatize it and
influence people not to do so. I would rather know if people are going to have
a downvote reaction to my comment than shame them into not downvoting me. I've
had the exact same tendency to observe "well I might get downvoted for this,"
but I think it's a tendency that should be resisted.

~~~
subsystem
Or just don't write it at all since expected to be down voted is often a sign
of unfounded opinions. In this case there's no indication at this point of
this being done by jihadists, which makes the previous comment ignorant at
best.

------
venomsnake
That is refreshingly sane. Sadly I fear that there will be total overreaction
by the government and the media.

The only proper reaction is take care of the survivors, bring the responsible
to justice and then cry for the dead. Do not assassinate them - bringing them
in chains in court is much more humiliating.

~~~
MichaelApproved
_"bring the responsible to justice"_

Probably the most difficult parts of this will be to define who is responsible
and what exactly constitutes as justice.

~~~
venomsnake
Tried in a federal court with the full rights and protections defined by the
US constitution etc etc.

Killing them like osama, blasting them with a drone or detaining them in gitmo
means the terrorist have won, because they have dragged the system down to
their own level.

Also it still may be not an act of terror. Just some wackos that decide it is
fun to blow stuff up. They don't have a need for a political agenda or
ideology to do stuff like that.

~~~
rayiner
If he's not caught on US soil and is not a citizen, like Osama, then he has no
protections under the constitution and its duck hunting season. The
Constitution does not create any protections for international fugitives
engaged in acts of war. Terrorists are the modern day Barbary Pirates. Nobody
in the founding generation suggested they should get full Constitutional
protections and a trial.

~~~
venomsnake
Sorry but there was no act of war because Osama never represented political
entity that could declare war on the US. And there are good reasons why the
Israelis went to such pains to bring Adolf Eichmann to trial instead of just
shooting him in Argentina.

Also murder is crime in Pakistan ... so if there was Pakistani rule of law the
navy seals are murderers.

~~~
tptacek
I don't think there's a way to make the logic you're employing work. Wars are
routinely fought between entities that do not recognize the sovereignty of
their adversaries; see, for instance, every civil war ever. We fought one of
those too.

On the nuts and bolts, the distinction you're trying to draw is also moot;
Congress explicitly authorized:

    
    
         That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate
         force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
         planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
         occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
         persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international
         terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or
         persons
    

If you'd like to look this up in the Geneva Conventions, you'll find GCIV
isn't particularly helpful to your argument; it refers to "persons taking
active part in hostilities" or "combatants", not nation-state actors, and
explicitly acknowledges conflicts that occur where one side or the other
doesn't acknowledge a state of "war". And "the presence of a protected person
may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military
operations".

About the best I think you can say is that striking Bin Laden could have been
an act of war against Pakistan. Somehow, I don't think they're going to follow
up on that.

------
nraynaud
I got lucky to leave the USA the day before they raise the crazy level at the
airports. I wonder what they will imagine to render flying and border-crossing
worse.

I guess "make the leaders live abroad for a while and force them to read
enlightenment century books" is off the table as a reaction to terrorism?

~~~
tquai
FWIW, Obama and Romney have both lived abroad. I think it takes a certain kind
of person to want to be president, and the effect of travel is different on a
person like that.

For this and other reasons, I think electoral politics is one of the least
effective places to put energy, in working for change.

------
rdfmq
Wow this article is bullshit. If we want to stop getting bombed, we need to
stop bombing other countries. Simple as that. What happened in Boston today
happens every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks to America.

------
kleiba
_Those on the other are criminals. They should be found, arrested, and
punished._

Wait, you are saying terrorists deserve a fair trial, too? What a strange
concept...

------
yarou
Inter arma enim silent leges.

~~~
comicjk
Ergo impiorum designare omnia tempora "inter arma"

~~~
greenyoda
Translation from the Latin, with help from Google Translate:

 _Amidst warfare, laws are silent. Therefore the wicked shall designate all
times "amidst warfare"._

Edit: Searching for the first phrase, " _inter arma enim silent leges_ ",
found this:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_arma_enim_silent_leges>

Apparently, the original is from Cicero (slightly differently worded).

~~~
jdotjdot
Thanks for this quote (and the translation) -- this is great.

Thought I was reading House of Leaves there for a second.

------
rayiner
"Terrorism, even the terrorism of radical Islamists and right-wing extremists
and lone actors all put together, is not an 'existential threat' against our
nation. Even the events of 9/11, as horrific as they were, didn't do
existential damage to our nation. Our society is more robust than it might
seem from watching the news. We need to start acting that way."

I wonder if there were people saying that to Romans about the barbarian
Germanic hordes.

~~~
GuiA
There's a key difference between the two, and I'm confident that you know that
yourself :)

~~~
rayiner
Enlighten me.

~~~
cynicalkane
The Germans were the border of the nation of Rome from 100 BC until the Empire
fell. They once slaughtered an entire Republic field army--and remember the
Republic's army consisted of most of Rome's young, able-bodied citizens. They
defeated Augustus, among other emperors, and eventually sacked Rome. Twice.
Before making the whole thing collapse.

So, small difference.

~~~
rayiner
So because we're geographically isolated, there is nothing to worry about?
Modern technology doesn't change the circumstances any?

~~~
jlgreco
What exactly are you envisioning here? If not a sacking of the country by
terrorist hoards, what _exactly_ are you proposing the parallels between the
fall of Rome and our modern society will be?

I _can_ envision terrorist attacks doing _major irreversible_ damage to our
society, but only through the fear, spiraling out of control, that they have
the potential to cause. A fear _so excessive_ that it could figuratively drive
our society off the cliffs of Saipan.

Presumably (since you _appear_ to be _advocating_ fear, and since it would be
plainly idiotic to suggest a sacking is immenent) you are suggesting a
different mechanism.

So what is this mechanism?

~~~
rayiner
With modern technology, you don't need to sack New York to cause tremendous
damage. People downplay the magnitude of 9/11, but as I noted somewhere else
today, it involved more deaths than Pearl Harbor, and economic damage of
almost $100 billion (without accounting for the economic impact on the stock
market). Is a terrorist attack ten times stronger inconceivable? An attack on
a nuclear power plant could cost into trillions
([http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-
co...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/a-nuclear-accident-could-cost-
trillions-of-dollars-and-bankrupt-us.html)). Maybe not irreversible damage,
but crippling nonetheless. Is it totally pointless to fear one or more
appropriately, to take affirmative actions to avoid one?

~~~
jlgreco
You really think that could bring "The Fall of New Rome"?

An attack _a hundred_ times more deadly (which would be something like 3% of
NYC's population dead, if my mental math does not betray me, or something a
little less than 10x The Blitz.) than 9/11 would be a tragedy with only a few
parallels in history. It would be an astronomically staggering blow to our
economy. Hell, the mangled remains of the economy after such an attack
probably would not even be recognizable as an economy at all... But bring down
our society? No, not unless we allowed our fear to betray us. Not unless we
abandoned any pretenses of maintaining our morale. Not unless we _permit_ it
to destroy us.

To be honest, it really just sounds like you've been having too many Red Dawn
fantasies. There are no more barbarian hoards; sorry to disappoint.

~~~
rayiner
No red dawn fantasies, just realpolitik ones. I would consider it a
destruction of our society if our economy was not "recognizable as an economy
at all." Indeed, the current recession only wiped out about $600 billion of
GDP at the worst, and look at how much suffering it caused. I'm willing to
vote for the US to send quite a few more drones to Pakistan to avert a
possible 10x 9/11 event, even if we could technically rebuild from one.

~~~
jlgreco
You define "society" far too narrowly. A society is not an economy, a
government, or even a piece of land enclosed by a border. It is an abstract
idea, a sort of shared culture and basic methodology.

Here is the real trick though, this "New Rome" is not a city. We don't have a
seat of power from which we derive our identity and shared culture, or any
sort of sackable cultural Mecca which we define ourselves by. You could level
NYC and kill every last person in it, dismantle the government and turn
dollars into papiermarks, but you would not have dismantled the society.

Remaining you would still have hundreds of millions of _Americans_ with no
invading army to eradicate them and what they beleived in. _More importantly_
, you would still _billions_ of others, across the world, who would _continue_
to make up bulk of our society. The worldwide shared culture of the 21st
century, of which Americans represents but a fraction. A culture of
appreciation for scientific progress, the arts, and political theories. A
collective history, solemly remembering the same wars, sharing the same
accomplishments. A Library of Alexandria that (thanks to dramatic advances in
publishing and distribution since the last) cannot be burned.

A few well placed bombs by a few extremists who want nothing to do with any of
this could never put an end to all of this. This is a society that cannot be
taken, cannot be sacked; we can only give it up. Only we present an
_existential_ threat to ourselves.

Could there be massive lose of life, and would that be worth preventing?
Absolutely. Are these people the Germanic hoards, posed to sack us? Are they
in a position to dismantle our society? _No._

~~~
rayiner
> You define "society" far too narrowly

You're defining "society" as a pointless philosophical abstraction. I'm
defining "society" in terms of the only thing I care about: the people and
country around me. I'm not interested in the history books that remain to be
written. I think most Americans feel similarly. It might be satisfying in some
intellectual sense if "the worldwide shared culture of the 21st century" (of
which America might represent a small fraction numerically, but which is
disproportionately American in its composition) survives, but does little good
for Americans who suffer.

~~~
jlgreco
> _I'm defining "society" in terms of the only thing I care about: the people
> and country around me._

The country/government is irrelevant, the people are the society and that _is_
what I am defining it as. Governments have come and gone with great frequency;
societies almost always survive them. Really only genocides, cultural or
otherwise, can halt them (and mad bombers are in no position to perform _any_
sort of genocide against modern society).

It strikes me as a fairly American-centric viewpoint that conflates American
government and American society. Plenty of other countries with strong, long-
lived, cultural identities have gone through _numerous_ governments in past
centuries, many of these governments lasting a few short decades or less. A
government is much easier to kill than a society, and dies with _far_ fewer
consequences.

If the death of a _society_ is not what you are actually concerned about, then
perhaps you should have put some thought into your initial comment before
drawing comparisons to the fall of the roman empire. If merely the fall of
governments and economies is what you are worried about, there are countless
better examples.

------
knodi
Finally some common sense in a world where common sense isn't so common. Don't
let fear rule you, i'm glad not all media is out to scare people.

------
occam65
Excuse my frankness, and this is a nice article and all, but why is this on
Hacker News? I understand it being a very big story in the general news, but I
come here for stories about a particular topic.

------
everyone
"Our fears would play right into the perpetrators' hands -- and magnify the
power of their victory for whichever goals whatever group behind this, still
to be uncovered, has."

Thats really bad writing!

------
AustinLin
Thank you for this.

------
nu2ycombinator
The title "Marathon Bombing" does not give right vibe. :(

