The most peaceful time of our species' existence?

[theotherwaldo]

From a Newsweek report about the Fading of America, of all places, comes a report that packages some strange news under the headline, "The Rise of the Rest"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/135380/page/1

A team of scholars at the University of Maryland has been tracking deaths caused by organized violence. Their data show that wars of all kinds have been declining since the mid-1980s and that we are now at the lowest levels of global violence since the 1950s. Deaths from terrorism are reported to have risen in recent years. But on closer examination, 80 percent of those casualties come from Afghanistan and Iraq, which are really war zones with ongoing insurgenciesand the overall numbers remain small. Looking at the evidence, Harvard's polymath professor Steven Pinker has ventured to speculate that we are probably living "in the most peaceful time of our species' existence."
Why does it not feel that way? Why do we think we live in scary times? Part of the problem is that as violence has been ebbing, information has been exploding. The last 20 years have produced an information revolution that brings us news and, most crucially, images from around the world all the time. The immediacy of the images and the intensity of the 24-hour news cycle combine to produce constant hype. Every weather disturbance is the "storm of the decade." Every bomb that explodes is BREAKING NEWS. Because the information revolution is so new, wereporters, writers, readers, viewersare all just now figuring out how to put everything in context.

We didn't watch daily footage of the two million people who died in Indochina in the 1970s, or the million who perished in the sands of the Iran-Iraq war ten years later. We saw little of the civil war in the Congo in the 1990s, where millions died. But today any bomb that goes off, any rocket that is fired, any death that results, is documented by someone, somewhere and ricochets instantly across the world. Add to this terrorist attacks, which are random and brutal. "That could have been me," you think. Actually, your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are tinyfor an American, smaller than drowning in your bathtub. But it doesn't feel like that.

-A process I call over-reporting, caused by too many news outlets and too little news. 

Anyway, an interesting and thought-provoking read from an unusual source... with some unexpected conclusions.

[Manedwolf]

I think a lot of that ebb in violence has to do with the access to information. Nobody can have a quiet little genocidal war anymore, it's on YouTube within hours, and nobody can do troop movements, or it's up on public-access satellite imagery.

The world has a lot of eyes now, and it didn't before.

[AJ Dual]

Pax Informatica....

[Tallpine]

Actually, your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are tinyfor an American, smaller than drowning in your bathtub.

That's only because we are fighting them "over there"   

Take showers - not baths 

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are tinyfor an American, smaller than drowning in your bathtub.

That's only because we are fighting them "over there"    

I'm not sure what's so funny about that.  We are fighting them over there.  And we are safer because of it.  Is my sense of humor impaired?  Is this just a case of laughing at things you don't understand? 

[Manedwolf]

Yes, we are fighting them over there. IEDs over there suck, and brave men and women die as a result of them.

But IEDs exploding on major US highways would be worse.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, we are fighting them over there. IEDs over there suck, and brave men and women die as a result of them.

But IEDs exploding on major US highways would be worse.

An IED is basically a 'big bomb' in laymen's parlance.

Considering practically anybody can mix up a large bomb and plant it off the side off a road, and the costs are minimal, how does waging war in Iraq "prevent" these big bombs being made by various anti-American malcontents?

[Manedwolf]

Yes, we are fighting them over there. IEDs over there suck, and brave men and women die as a result of them.

But IEDs exploding on major US highways would be worse.

An IED is basically a 'big bomb' in laymen's parlance.

Considering practically anybody can mix up a large bomb and plant it off the side off a road, and the costs are minimal, how does waging war in Iraq "prevent" these big bombs being made by various anti-American malcontents?

BIN LADEN: "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate."

The enemy listened to him. That's where the fight is.

[Perd Hapley]

MB, your definition is quite wrong.  An IED is an Improvised Explosive Device.  It need not be big; it does need to be improvised. 

I'm tired of explaining the Iraq War to those who refuse to get it.  Read a book. 

[MicroBalrog]

MB, your definition is quite wrong.  An IED is an Improvised Explosive Device.  It need not be big; it does need to be improvised. 

Yes, but most of the ones used in Iraq are really big, to compensate for the lack of complexity. At least that's what I read.

[Firethorn]

An IED is basically a 'big bomb' in laymen's parlance.

Considering practically anybody can mix up a large bomb and plant it off the side off a road, and the costs are minimal, how does waging war in Iraq "prevent" these big bombs being made by various anti-American malcontents?

As fistful notes, an IED is not defined by size.  It's defined as not being a standard explosive device like those assembled in factories.  Thus, you have the problem that they're not standardized, booby traps are likely, thus making disarming them problematic.

As for the 'why not' on attacks inside of the USA, it's a cultural thing.  As Manedwolf's quote from BL points out, they have to kick us out of the middle east first.  While I'm sure there are those that want a strike in the USA, it's not as likely because the donations, in funds, supplies, and manpower, are going towards trying to kick us out of Iraq.  First priority is to get the Islamic lands back before going after non-Islamic lands again.

That, and it's a matter of cost/efficiency.  Over there we're at the end of a LONG supply chain, and it's their neighborhood.  Over there, they can get an AK47 for less than $100.  Over here, they'd be lucky to get a semi-auto SKS for less than $300.  They want their AK, it has to be smuggled(risky and expensive).  Over there, Mortar shells can be found in many places, cheap, for usage in an IED.  Over here, they'd have to start with precursors.  Hijacking a plane won't work again.

That and I think that we're doing a pretty good job of counter intel here in the USA. 

[Manedwolf]

MB, your definition is quite wrong.  An IED is an Improvised Explosive Device.  It need not be big; it does need to be improvised. 

Yes, but most of the ones used in Iraq are really big, to compensate for the lack of complexity. At least that's what I read.

An IED with a concave copper disk EFP and an IR trigger or cellphone/radio control remote isn't complex?

[MicroBalrog]

MB, your definition is quite wrong.  An IED is an Improvised Explosive Device.  It need not be big; it does need to be improvised. 

Yes, but most of the ones used in Iraq are really big, to compensate for the lack of complexity. At least that's what I read.

An IED with a concave copper disk EFP and a cellphone detonator isn't complex?

Here, you know more than me about the subject of how insurgents rig their bombs.

As I said, I don't know. I read at some point the insurgents are not very well trained and often use really large, unsophisticated bombs to compensate for not having access to proper military off-road mines, but I guess I was wrong.

[Manedwolf]

No, they're pretty sophisticated now.

EFP, Explosively Formed Penetrator, as used in Iraq IEDs

The charges are generally cylindrical, fabricated from commonly available metal pipe, with the forward end closed by a concave copper or steel disk-shaped liner to create a shaped charge. Explosive is loaded behind the metal liner to fill the pipe. Upon detonation, the explosive projects the liner to form a projectile at a speed well over 1 km/s, depending on the design and type of explosive used.

Because they use explosives to form a molten (technically, a super-plastically formed, but still solid) copper penetrator, instead of using an explosive blast or solid metal penetrator, these charges are extremely dangerous, even to the new generation of MRAPs (which are made to withstand an anti-tank mine), and many tanks.[7]

Often mounted on crash barriers at window level, they are placed along roadsides at choke points where vehicles must slow down, such as intersections and junctions. This gives the operator time to judge the moment to fire, when the vehicle is moving more slowly.[8]

Detonation is controlled by cable, radio control (RC), or remote arming with passive IR (PIR) trigger. EFPs can be deployed singly, in pairs, or in arrays, depending on the tactical situation.

The most recent innovation (after the arrival of shaped charges) gaining popularity are infrared triggers for IEDs (improvised explosive devices). These triggers are a conversion of the simple "light" beams used in burglar alarms (see image) and as safety mechanisms on garage doors. The beams are activated remotely by radio controls when a patrol approaches. When the light beam is crossed the bomb goes off. Unfortunately, unlike radio controls the beams are not easily jammed. These new triggers have been used in numerous deadly attacks on British forces over the last several months.

Improvised Explosive Device in Iraq. The concave copper shape on top is an explosively formed penetrator.

The one thing they have more access to there than they would here, as mentioned, is explosive materials. They can just disassemble old artillery shells. They would need precursor chemicals here, but the tech itself could be obtained in any Home Depot and Radio Shack.

Here, you know more than me about the subject of how insurgents rig their bombs.

I just consider it a good survival trait in this day and age to keep brushed up on knowledge of What Might Really Be a Bomb. Unlike the City of Boston. So far, the only things people have done in the US have pretty much been large fertilizer/fuel oil truck bombs, pipe bombs with not much yield, and a steel ammo can filled with black powder in Times Square in front of a recruiting station. Small, powerful bombs require military explosives, very unstable explosives (TATP) or things that raise red flags when someone buys all the precursor chemicals. Some damn fools will pick up a two-capped piece of large PVC lying somewhere, and I want to be sure I'm already going the other way instead!

Though the "shoe bomber", coming through the UK, had the shoes filled with PETN, pentaerythritol tetranitrate...I'm not sure if they ever found out where he got it? Semtex (PETN and RDX) in a small radio brought down the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie.

[Tallpine]

While I'm sure there are those that want a strike in the USA, it's not as likely because the donations, in funds, supplies, and manpower, are going towards trying to kick us out of Iraq.

Okay, I see ... sorta like they did with Spain.

[Perd Hapley]

To be fair, though, any booby-trap, land mine or bomb used by the bad guys is being called an IED in common parlance. 

[mfree]

Hrmm. Sophistication.

Could not an EFP be made by cutting one end off an air tank, inverting it and fastening it into place?

[Manedwolf]

Hrmm. Sophistication.

Could not an EFP be made by cutting one end off an air tank, inverting it and fastening it into place?

Copper? It's got to be copper to have that effect.

[mfree]

The charges are generally cylindrical, fabricated from commonly available metal pipe, with the forward end closed by a concave copper or steel disk-shaped liner to create a shaped charge. Explosive is loaded behind the metal liner to fill the pipe.

[mtnbkr]

How many attacks did we have here before the WoT?  I recall two offhand, the first WTC bombing in 1993 and the 911 attack.  There was 8 years between them.  Two attacks separated by 8 years hardly indicates a trend.  Not having an attack for 7 years hardly indicates success.  I think it's too soon to claim our actions over there are keeping them from attacking us here.  It seems it takes them quite a long time to plan and execute an attack.  Maybe in another 5 or 10 years we can say that, but not yet IMO.

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

Sure. 

[mtnbkr]

I'm wrong?  Explain.

Tell me how two incidents with nearly a decade between them indicates a trend while no such incidents in a shorter period of time indicates a reversal of that trend.

You can't claim success until the symptoms are absent for a longer period of time than it takes for them to appear.

Not saying I agree or disagree with what we're doing.  I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of the whole "we're keeping them tied up there so they can't fight us here" claim. 

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

   I was agreeing with you.  But I will have to disagree here:

I'm just pointing out the inconsistency of the whole "we're keeping them tied up there so they can't fight us here" claim. 

That claim is not inconsistent, certainly not on the grounds you've cited.  I didn't make it based on the lack of recent terrorist acts, I said it because I believe in that strategy for other reasons.