At 11:39 PM 9/2/96 GMT, John Young wrote:
Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct, Lead Essay:
"Postmodern Terrorism. The terrorism of the future may be far more destructive than terrorism as we have known it."
An informative survey and pot-heat by Walter Laqueur.
Terrorism's prospects, often overrated by the media, the public, and some politicians, are improving as its destructive potential increases. Terrorism has replaced wars between nations of the 1800s and 1900s. [deleted] Why assassinate a politician or indiscriminately kill people when an attack on electronic switching will produce far more dramatic and lasting results? If the new terrorism directs its energies toward information warfare, its destructive power will be exponentially greater than any it wielded in the past -- greater even than it would be with biological and chemical weapons. The single successful one could claim many more victims, do more material damage, and unleash far greater panic than anything the world has yet experienced. http://jya.com/pothot.txt (30 kb)
<sigh> Am I being unreasonable to expect at least a certain degreee of logic in the world? Why is it that this guy (Laqueur) seems to believe that the future is filled with "greater panic than anything the world has yet experienced." I believe that, while there may be panic, it'll be panic on the part of the politicians, not ordinary citizens. I suppose a certain amount of bias is to be expected, seeing as how it's Foreign Affairs magazine. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com