[parishilton]

Originally posted by Arrian
What about other reactions we had? I agree with you, Arrian. Going into Afghanistan was an irrational act and a waste of resources.

[Muramoursuard]

Right, I don't see even a major city giving major problems as far as western survival goes. It would be a big upset naturally, a big upset.

But it would trigger such a massive hatred, that we would boil and trash PC and every other term and go for the extermination mode. If a real city would go, the whole city, say London or NYC, I think the response would be overwhelming and the only standing armies that could take it are the ones who wouldn't launch an attack like that and then stop and wait for the response. And terrorists or countries with a big problem of these pests do not have the capability to strike continuously so that the response time would be too short for the west to strike back. Few major attacks, sure, but continued strong attacks? Not really, not in the 'cities gone!'-level anyway.

And fortunately potential challengers as far as resources goes are not against the west militarily.

[JesikaFclq]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I agree with you, Arrian. Going into Afghanistan was an irrational act and a waste of resources. As you well know, that's not my position.

I was actually not aiming at Iraq either, DD.

-Arrian

[dodsCooggipsehome]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We have different levels of scale when we think that . The stock market is not a physical thing located in New York, the data that makes up the exchange is available in multiple places though since we are used to accessing it in a certain way there would be adjustment. Your punishment in purgatory, Mr Patroklos, will be to move a major organization involving several thousand employees and complex computer and telecom resources from one office building to another. Your next punishment will be to do this in a couple of weeks, with no prior planning. Your next punishment will be to do this in a city that has a sudden shortage of office space.


You remind me of folks who insist that the human body is only worth the chemicals that make it up.

[YabbaIn]

BTW, Id like to say Im saddened by what happened to the people of India. India is resilient, thank goodness, but what happens to them must not be forgotten over here.

[NodePark]

I think it's a better example of you not understanding how interconnected things are in a modern global economy. What a backwards statement, is precisely because of how interconnected the modern global economy that this shouldn't have and wouldn't have had any effect if not for irrational emotional reactions.

The airlines didn't get hurt because they lost four planes, they got hurt because the grounding of all their flights for a few days had a crippling affect that only snowballed the longer it lasted. That is a ridiculous statement. And again, why were they grounded from more than a day? An irrational emotional reaction.

to mention the resulting fear of flying after that. I hope you mentioned this, because it is the reason the airlines took the hit, irrational fear of flying and irrational fear to let people fly.

[quote]Then start thinking about insurance payouts to all parties on all levels (life, property, etc.). [quote]

Hardy a blip on the radar considering all the 100,000s of life insurance policies paid out every year.

The property insurance on downtown Manhattan sure did suck, but given the net value of that industry again, barely a blip on the radar.

Think about all the companies across the globe that did business with firms located in the WTC that now just evaporated. Etc., etc. What percentage of NYC's office space was contained within the WTC? And before you try and quantify the "loss of all those businesses" (how many were wholly based in the WTC?) you may want to look up how much of the WTC was vacant.

Now try extrapolating that to an entire city. We did, how much of any service/resource present in the Western world tied up NYC?

Geez man, it was FOUR planes. Have you forgotten even THAT? I was specifically talking about the WTC, but your right when we magnified the scope I should have included the other two planes.

Effect on the overall outcome = none.

As for the reaction being irrational was it? Yes. Understandable as well.

Cause in hindsight, once wed improved boarding procedures, added more air marshalls, banned box cutters and put steel doors on cockpits, it was impossible to repeat 9/11? Did grounding flights for a week (or whatever it was) help in any of that. In fact, can you think of any positive effect that action had period after the first few hours?

And meanwhile it was not necessarily irrational for ordinary folks to be reluctant to travel by air again. Yes it was, especially if they were still driving their cars around with a greater chance of injury/death.

Just as irrational as the people on TV talking about being scared of driving over bridges after Minnesota.

I dont think theres any way we could have avoided significant disruptionk, even if we could have lessened it a bit. That is a blatantly false comment, especially now that we know not grounding a single flight would have had added nothing to the tragedy.

Your punishment in purgatory, Mr Patroklos, will be to move a major organization involving several thousand employees and complex computer and telecom resources from one office building to another. Businesses do that all the time.

Your next punishment will be to do this in a couple of weeks, with no prior planning. What does this have to do with anything?

Your next punishment will be to do this in a city that has a sudden shortage of office space. Name me one major US city with a shortage of office space.

You remind me of folks who insist that the human body is only worth the chemicals that make it up. That is a blatantly personnel comment and entirely unnecessary (and undeserved).

[bestbyV]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Patroklos



Did grounding flights for a week (or whatever it was) help in any of that. In fact, can you think of any positive effect that action had period after the first few hours?

At the time we did not know if there was a follow up plot, a hidden cell, etc and we had not yet implemented new procedures. Given what we knew at the time, it made sense.

Yes it was, especially if they were still driving their cars around with a greater chance of injury/death.

If you assume they make transportation mode choices to minimize fears of death, which obviously they dont. They weigh costs, time, convenience, and danger, among other factors. If a mode suddenly looks worse in one factor, it may be rational to switch modes, even if that mode is STILL superior to the other mode you switch to.

For example, if Amtrak is 50% cheaper than air, I may well go Amtrak even though its much slower. If its only 10% cheaper, I might switch to air. This kind of choice happens all the time, in transportation, and in most other industries as well.



That is a blatantly false comment, especially now that we know not grounding a single flight would have had added nothing to the tragedy.


IE with hindsight, that we couldnt possibly have had then.

I have not been in a motor vehicle accident in years. Ergo, all the time, energy, and discomfort of putting on seat belts that time has been wasted?

You cant do retrospective cost benefit on a precaution against an unlikely event that way.


Businesses do that all the time.

yes, and its costly and disruptive.

What does this have to do with anything?

To show why what NYSE and other lower Manhattan orgs had to do post 9/11 was even MORE costly and disruptive than ordinary business moves.

Name one major US city with a shortage of office space.

Manhattan, right after 9/11.


That is a blatantly personnel comment and entirely unnecessary (and undeserved). Retract it.

You are correct, one should criticize the post, not the poster. I was wrong.

What I SHOULD have said, was that the line of reasoning expressed by your posts on this thread, reminds of the line of reasoning that suggests that a human body is worth a few dollars, the worth of the simple chemicals that it can be reduced to.

[Gakeincidoniac]

At the time we did not know if there was a follow up plot, a hidden cell, etc and we had not yet implemented new procedures. Given what we knew at the time, it made sense. What other airplane bombing/hijacking has prompted the majority of a continent to ground all its planes for a week?

If you assume they make transportation mode choices to minimize fears of death, which obviously they don’t. Is it your position that those who refused to fly after 9/11 were not making that choice out of a fear for safety/life? Seriously?

Explain why it is not irrational (even if understandable) for someone to forgo a method of travel because the already infinitesimal chance of death increased an irrelevant amount while at the same time using another mode of transport that is many times more dangerous.

IE with hindsight, that we couldnt possibly have had then. Its not hindsight, it was obvious that to pull another hijacking off like that became immediately impossible. Grounding the planes was entirely unnecessary, especially once ever pilot, flight attendant and passenger was aware of a threat.

Did it hurt to be extra careful? No, but don't blame the economic impact on the actual attacks, it was our reaction that caused it, some may think the loss to the economy was worth it for the warm fuzzy. In fact most do, but don't pretend that wasn't caused by us.

I have not been in a motor vehicle accident in years. Ergo, all the time, energy, and discomfort of putting on seat belts that time has been wasted? Does the act of putting your seat belt on have any negative effect/cost what so ever?

To show why what NYSE and other lower Manhattan orgs had to do post 9/11 was even MORE costly and disruptive than ordinary business moves. Did I say it should have zero effect? In the end does the fact that the Schwab offices in NYC might have to relocate have any effect, or should it, on the operations of Church's Chicken in Charleston SC?

Manhattan, right after 9/11. Manhattan, but what about NYC. Was there a shortage or just a shortage because people didn't want to move to a medium wealth high rise in the Bronx?

What I SHOULD have said, was that the line of reasoning expressed by your posts on this thread, reminds of the line of reasoning that suggests that a human body is worth a few dollars, the worth of the simple chemicals that it can be reduced to. If I were really pursuing that line of thought I would have said something like losing a miniscule percentage of office space in NYC amounts to the damage of losing brain cells to a single bong hit.

[Cabinanteerip]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Patroklos


What other airplane bombing/hijacking has prompted the majority of a continent to ground all its planes for a week?

I know of no other hijacking that resulted in much more than the loss of a plane and its passengers, as opposed to 3000 people on the ground, and a major office complex.


Is it your position that those who refused to fly after 9/11 were not making that choice out of a fear for safety/life? Seriously?

Explain why it is not irrational (even if understandable) for someone to forgo a method of travel because the already infinitesimal chance of death increased an irrelevant amount while at the same time using another mode of transport that is many times more dangerous.


My position is that folks added a fear of death or injury to an existing set of factors used to weigh mode choices. Also the impact of the inconvenience of the check in procedure.


Its not hindsight, it was obvious that to pull another hijacking off like that became immediately impossible. Grounding the planes was entirely unnecessary, especially once ever pilot, flight attendant and passenger was aware of a threat.

Ah, the "everyone will pull off a United Flight 93" argument. Of course the hijackers on THAT flight didnt realize THAT would happen, one presumes that any future hijackers will count on it, and will prepare accordingly. Look, I dont recall thinking at the time that another hijacking was impossible, and I am unconvinced now that short of the full panoply of measures taken, it would have been impossible.



Does the act of putting your seat belt on have any negative effect/cost what so ever?

For sure. Time, inconvenience, and discomfort. Im sure we could come up with other examples though, if that one is too trivial. Cost of insurance? Discomfort of bicycle helmets (when Ive never fallen on my head). It applies in general to ex post cost benefit of costly strategy to reduce risk.



Did I say it should have zero effect? In the end does the fact that the Schwab offices in NYC might have to relocate have any effect, or should it, on the operations of Church's Chicken in Charleston SC?

Huh??? I dont know. Whats your point?


Manhattan, but what about NYC. Was there a shortage or just a shortage because people didn't want to move to a medium wealth high rise in the Bronx?

There is very little office space in NYC outside Manhattan. Theres more in all of greater NY, but IIRC the entire greater NY market was impacted, if not as severely as Manhattan. And if youre gonna relocate to Stamford, youre going to have significant disruptions to youre labor force that will also be costly.



If I were really pursuing that line of thought I would have said something like losing a miniscule percentage of office space in NYC amounts to the damage of losing brain cells to a single bong hit.

Im not personally familiar enough with bong hits to judge the quantities involved. My point was about reductionism.

[RuttyUttepe]

Originally posted by Patroklos


And my point is about exaggeration. Of all the problems the world has today, reductionism is not one of them. Grossly magnifying the impact of every occurance is rampant. Reductionism is not minimilization of anything. Reductionism is the belief that you can understand a thing by reducing it to its parts - you can understand a society by looking at inviduals, or human body by looking at cells, or a cell by looking at atoms.

at the lower levels, reductionism can be powerful within limits - molecular biology is great, although the most powerful ideas in biology in biology like evolution were found by looking at animals, not by looking at DNA (that came later). Similarly looking at organizations by analyzing the motives of individuals within them (as economics often does) can be very fruitful, but to pretend an organization is just the sum of papers, and of individual activities, misses a lot. Living things, organizations, societies, are organized things, not just sums of their components, and viewing them as sums of their components will always miss the impact of disruptions to organizations.

And yes, I know that certain forms of non-hierarchal linkage, of which the internet is a good example, reduce the impact of disorganizing events. I dont think we're close to being as far along on that as you imply, and we were less far in 2001.

[carpartsho]

If an American major city ever got nuked, then I will watch on with sadness, and just a little bit of unholy glee, as I see the entire Middle East being turned into one giant slab of glass. Sadness that it had to end this way, and glee that it was finally ending.

I will then feel extremely guilty about that momentary pang of glee when I see the suffering of the innocents involved.














I think I over-analyse, and I know myself far too well.

[glagoliska]

Originally posted by aneeshm
If an American major city ever got nuked, then I will watch on with sadness, and just a little bit of unholy glee, as I see the entire Middle East being turned into one giant slab of glass. Sadness that it had to end this way, and glee that it was finally ending.

I will then feel extremely guilty about that momentary pang of glee when I see the suffering of the innocents involved.
You're getting to be quite the troll. I don't believe you.

[celddiskend]

Originally posted by aneeshm
IBNLive Link



What are we going to DO about this? We never do ANYTHING. Our people die, and we just watch on, apathetic. The government doesn't care, it never cares. The people don't care either. We've bled for more than twenty years, and it just doesn't stop. And all those who can make a difference never actually DO anything.

Why don't we ever actually LISTEN to the terrorists for once? We all dismiss them as motivated by this or that. Do we ever actually hear what they say they are doing this for? Do we bother to ever consider the possibility that they may be SINCERE? Unless we do that, how do we ever expect to be able to take concrete action, to deal with this threat, this menace, this evil?

But life will go on. The police will catch a few suspects, find out more, the media will raise a frenzy about "minority persecution", then a few years later, the perpetrators will be caught, given a life sentence, or the death penalty, the human rights organisations will raise a ruckus about the human rights of the people who did this, the case will drag on, and all will be forgotten, and then there will be another attack. But life will go on. Apathetic. Why do you need to do anything? You have a billion plus people. Winnar

[BPitt]

I agree that the impact of terrorist attacks is minimal in terms of numbers. I agree that even a nuke attack against one city would mean little in the large term of things. When we say this, we are dismissing the emotional impact of course, but I submit that dismissing this impact is the same as dismissing the fact that we need blood in our bodies to live. Until we are a civilization of Vulcans, our emotion, irrationality, and perception is what really matters. Mass intense emotional trauma is as effective as any physical damage. Even if what you're saying is not wrong, it's still a silly point to bring up.

[Amerworma]

[Kneedycrype]

Indeed. So far, they've seemed to have done a better job than teh Mumabi cops after teh train bombings, who, sensibly enough, asked all witnesses to come in and tell them what they saw, but then treated Muslim witnesses as suspects and held some of them simply for being Muslim and in teh area when teh bombs went off. I don't know if this is teh kind of "swift and harsh response to terrorism" that some like to see, but it helps achieve exactly what teh bombers want (i.e. creating a Hindu-Muslim divide).

[Frjrbefd]

Originally posted by Patroklos
In 30 years the ME will be exactly what it was for most of human history. Sand. And they can have all they want. Nah. Up till about 1200 AD, it was a heartland of civilization. Soon as we disinvent most of the agricultural and navigational improvements of the last 1000+ years, it will be again.