Comment

I fully agree that a powerful military has a better fire power than Al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, but they also have a lot more restrictions. Military is always (assuming its well managed) restricted by some degree of responsibility. A terrorist – let alone lunatic – is not. Military cannot go and bomb a office buidlings on foreign ground just to cause terror, a lunatic can. The reason for military’s existence is the protection of people. Therefore they have to adjust their operations so that the pros beat the cons. Again, as a lunatic seldom has anything to protect, he doesn’t have to think about the consequences (i.e. the survival of the US).

So getting back to my original point: a creative lunatic can do more damage than a well managed military. It’s not about fire power, it’s about not having to limit the use of available fire power. Terrorist with a knife can do more damage than military with an F-22, because the military cannot do as much damage as they theoretically could.

So while no military would destroy the Three gorges dam even though they easily could, a terrorist just might. And that’s why also the mental impact is bigger than in the case of traditional war: if you’re attacked by a fleet of F-22s, you know who your enemy is. But if you’re hit by a dirty bomb or rogue missile from Pakistan – or even any random by-passer with a knife, who do you defend yourself against?

13 days ago on US drone strikes condemned as illegal by Pakistan's highest court

Comment

Bomb a hydropower plant: not even remotely the same impact as 9/11

Bomb a nuclear reactor: many of them have air defence systems (passive or active), and even if succesful, the strike would probably lead to a counter action so its not the first thing to be carried out by well managed military (yes, the israeli were able to carry out such a strike, but it didn’t have too much of an impact on the world). Also, Chernobyl disaster for example resulted in the immediate death of 31 people and caused cancer to ca. 4000 (according to WHO). 9/11 killed 3000 people + tens of thousands through the following wars

Bomb Kremlin: do you really want to have 100 nuclear missiles heading your way? Not really something a well controlled military would do (unless WW3 was going on, and then it wouldn’t matter any more)

All in all, terrorists don’t have to think about the adverse impacts of their actions, military has to.

13 days ago on US drone strikes condemned as illegal by Pakistan's highest court 1 reply 1 recommend

Comment

And, to quote Higher Living, what could the F-22 target to have the same impact on world economy, politics and minds of people?

A well controlled military doesn’t just have the fire power: they also have the responsibility over something / someone. The creative lunatic doesn’t have the same responsibility, so they can cross a lot more lines without having to fear for a revenge.

13 days ago on US drone strikes condemned as illegal by Pakistan's highest court 1 reply 1 recommend

Comment

Well, Al-Qaeda never had an F-22, but a group of people with knives on board airplanes. And they were able to kill nearly 3000 people on US soil. That’s a lot of shooting for an F-22.

13 days ago on US drone strikes condemned as illegal by Pakistan's highest court 1 reply

Comment

No, but you could “foreget” to guard the launch station (or the plutonium in the missiles). Pakistan’s missiles do not reach the US, but they do reach some of US millitary bases outside of Pakistan besides a lot of other strategic areas. Bombing e.g. a major oil field would damage US more than a single nuclear missile on us soil. Pakistan wouldn’t do that, but Al-Qaeda could do it.

Now, this is of course fiction and will not likely happen even if US continues the drone strikes. But still, don’t think some one is 100% safe just because they have the biggest military in the world. A creative lunatic with a knife can do more damage than a well controlled military with an F-22.

13 days ago on US drone strikes condemned as illegal by Pakistan's highest court 1 reply 1 recommend

Comment

Well, they could start openly supporting Al-Qaeda and the talibans, and hand over one nuclear missile for starters… I don’t think US really wants to loose its few allies in that region, especially given that there are nuclear weapons.

13 days ago on US drone strikes condemned as illegal by Pakistan's highest court 1 reply 7 recommends

Comment

Who would have thought. Killing civilians is cosndiered illegal, even if you do by a remote controlled device!

13 days ago on US drone strikes condemned as illegal by Pakistan's highest court 6 recommends