The problem with this speculation is that there is no way to know about the likely methods, possibilities or even motivations of groups like the perpetrators of 11 September.
Tending to the social science side, most of us on this list would like to be able to apply our predictive methodologies, but they are not much help, since, the groups involved are so small and unrepresentative, that the arbitrary plays a predominant part in their thoughts and actions.
I think of it like crime, or an act of God, if it happens, it happens, there is not much that you can do about it, beyond the obvious security measures. On a personal level, you can feel angry about the waste of life, but it is not as if such thinking is susceptible to debate. It is just a condition of living in a free society that people can if they choose act destructively.
It is fear that is the most destructive thing. But it would be a mistake to think that it is the 'terrorists' that create the fear. Fear is written into contemporary society. Al-Qaeda merely give it a conveniently alien form, so that we can all pretend that they are terrorising us, when the truth is that if it weren't them, it would be something else, like foot and mouth, AIDS, crime or any other moral panic.
The campaign in Afghanistan - Gar's main target, I think - is something quite different. That is a campaign undertaken not just by one but many governments, and part of a political process. I think there is something of an obligation to say that it verges on the insane. Or more precisely, it visits the West's own moral confusion, arbitrarily, upon the blameless people of Afghanistan, in the form of carpet bombing. Now that's depraved.
In message <3BE33750.2070207 at sprintmail.com>, Gar Lipow <lipowg at sprintmail.com> writes
>
>I still say that probabilities (unfortunately not certainties, but
>probabilities) are that while there are lots of way they can kill
>dozens, and a few they might kill hundreds, there are no easy ways left
>to kill thousand. (I'm talking about the anti-U.S. terrorists of
>course. (The U.S. not only can but will kill tens, and perhaps
>hundreds of thousands through starvation.)
>
>In fact I will make a similar wager to Max. No attack by terrorists
>will kill anything close to a thousand people. My wager starts now,
>unlike Max who waits until some months after the Afghanistan winter is
>over. The problem is if no attack killing thouands happens, how do you
>know whether my explanation of Max's is the right one?
>
>Ultimately, short term (3 years or less) prevention of terrorism will
>depend mostly on whether we actually do stuff that makes terrorism
>inside the U.S. harder to commit and easier to detect (as opposed to
>simply repealing the constitution).U.S. foreign policy (including wars)
>will have a long term effect - but will do almost nothing in the short
>term. I know we agree that the current bombing is doing nothing in this
>regard except helping to create the next generation of anti-US terrorists.
>
-- James Heartfield