|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Analysis from a JHU CS Prof
A cogent analysis of this morning's events... >From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[email protected]> >Subject: Thoughts on this morning's events >Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:07:24 -0400 > >I hope and trust that all of those concerned for their loved ones will find >them healthy and whole. If you are stuck at work, consider waiting a few >hours to go home. Right now the roads are far more risk than staying put. > >As someone who passed through the WTC 45 minutes before the bomb went off >years ago, and watched live as the second WTC tower was penetrated at 9:03, >I wanted to inject some analysis into the current situation. > >This act goes well beyond terrorism as we have previously understood it. >It's been repeatedly demonstrated to us that a single plane can be hijacked >by a small, well-prepared group backed up by the right logistics support. >Hijacking *five* planes, on a tight timetable, from multiple locations, to >hit multiple targets within 90 minutes of each other is simply a completely >different scale of organization. This act required logistic support and >coordination involving hundreds of people, with major-league funding. > >Also, it's worth remembering that airplanes aren't all that easy to fly, and >it's unlikely that a commercial pilot could be persuaded to fly into a >building -- even at gunpoint. This means that the perpetrators needed to >find five adequate pilots, which in turn means that they needed to know *in >advance* which kinds of planes they would be hijacking. While a lot of the >pilot training could be done using Flight Simulator, you still need to know >what to train for. > >Further, this is a very difficult attack to defend against. Suppose you >*did* have a SAM (surface to air missile) handy in New York, and you saw the >plane coming in time to use it. Do you shoot down a plane over a major >metropolitan area, or do you let it crash? Which will cause greater >destruction? While you figure it out the opportunity passes. > >The attackers picked planes that were scheduled for cross-country flights, >and would therefore be loaded with JP (airplane fuel). JP burns very hot, >and is relatively easy to set on fire. Because these planes were loaded with >fuel, they could be relied on to spread the fuel through the buildings on >impact, maximizing damage and hampering rescue efforts. > >The planes were hijacked from major U.S. airports. Security at these >airports may not be the tightest in the world, but neither is it sloppy. In >this case, it was systematically beaten in several locations at once. This >required time, money, thought, and preparation. > >What we have here is an attacker who has said not just "I can attack >anything I want", but "I can attack lots of things, all at once, and not >only can't you stop me but you can't even detect a very large organization >that is doing the preparations -- even when we tip you off three weeks in >advance!" > >On the whole, it seems fair to say that this entire action was carefully >thought out, planned in careful detail, and (at least from the attacker's >perspective) well executed. It required access to significant information >resources. > >Obviously, the targets were picked for maximum symbolic value, but the >Pentagon is a military target. That means that this *isn't* an act of >terrorism; it is an act of war. If indeed it proves that the attacker was >bin-Laden, and if Taliban has been harboring him, it would not surprise me >to see the United States take the view that Taliban has committed an >undeclared act of war, and react accordingly. > >Finally, an observation on people's reactions. People here at Hopkins showed >a range of initial reactions from dismay to tears to shock. But this quickly >changed. The second reaction was universally anger. The sense of things -- >and we are talking here about basically pacifist academics, mind you -- is >that if we can figure out who launched this thing we should take them out >decisively, and it's just too damned bad if some country decides to get on >the wrong side. > >If the goal of this attack was fear it has failed. Possibly, it has altered >the American perception of terrorism in a basic way and convinced us that >decisive action is the only response to terrorism. This lesson comes at too >high a cost, and with personal tragic impact on too many people, and at a >price that we should never have been forced to pay, to be sure. Still, if >this incident teaches America to respond decisively to terrorism then >perhaps those losses will mean something, and *some* small good may yet be >recovered from this. > >Meanwhile, let us hope that the death toll is smaller than all our fears, >and do what we can to help the victims and their loved ones come to terms as >they can. > > >Jonathan S. Shapiro
|