Saturday, November 29, 2008

Will India respond?

The media is sounding its alarm bells - either our government planted it themselves or someone with interests in the piece (of land) process has planted it. US officials fear Indian response, or so it goes. Why would the US fear it? As a country which launched full blown attacks on 2 countries, what is the big deal for it?

But, in any case, dont worry. We will do nothing of that sort. Words, statements, committees and probability are our biggest weapons remember - not the army. The army is used to build security rings around our politicians, their sons-in-law and other important people. At other times, we simply run down our army by reducing their wages, ranks and what not... And blah, blah, we are a non violent nation, when someone bombs our city on the west coast, we just turn the other coast and ask them to strike there also. Wait for vermins from that side to be inspired by vermins from this side.

Ideally, we should be blowing up the LeTs (wiki entry) camps in Muridke and elsewhere, but you know we wont.


Mohan said...

You keep talking about surviving by probability. I don't see anything wrong with that. It is true even without terrorism. When we drive, chances of not dying is less than 100%. When we fly, it is the same. There is a chance of death in almost every thing we do and we still do it because they are necessary. Similarly, perfect security is neither possible to achieve nor necessary. Let's say if we spend 10% of our GDP on improving our security apparatus, intelligence, infrastructure etc. to almost eliminate terrorism - would it be worth it? I don't think so - because 10% of GDP is too high a figure to spend just to save a few hundred lives. It may seem callous to say so, but our decision should be based on cost-benefit analysis. So yes, instead of a few hundred lives, if it can save a million lives, then yes, spending 10% of GDP will become worth it.

Neelakantan said...

I hope you understand the problem with your "analysis". The death in traffic or flying is not because traffic or flying hates you and wants to kill you.

Terrorism is fuelled by an ideology that wants you dead Mohan. Unlike traffic and flying. It is also not about perfect security, but about the perfect antidote.

Like the virus that enters your body, do you take medicine or do you not? I hope you do - in our case,terror virus has entered our country and there is no antidote...

Mohan said...

My point was about your repeated reference to survival by probability. It is true with everything else. It doesn't matter whether the source of death is accidental (as in driving and flying) or deliberate (as in terrorism) - as long as the probability of it causing death is low enough, we don't have to worry and continue living normally.
Yes, we do take medicines for virus, but as long as it is affordable and there are no side effects and the benefit from taking medicine exceeds its costs. Same kind of analysis needs to be done for tackling terrorism too.

Kavi said...

Its time to take things into our hands. We dont need to bandy weapons but its time that we start ushering in change to our own lives.

The army cant be everywhere. And besides there are politicians to gaurd !!

Its time..

Anonymous said...

To compare traffic death to terrorism is ignorance at best or denial at worst. This is an ideological issue and the more you pretend things are normal with blinkers over your eyes, the disease will spread, enough like cancer. Early detection and response is the key to survival.

Why is traffic in Bombay orderly - because you will get caught. Why are there no terror attacks in US -better prevention and response systems?

froginthewell said...

Dude Mohan,

What on earth gives you the impression that the toll will remain restricted to a few hundred?

For heaven's sake, a terrorist attack is not modeled by a Poisson distribution or anything of that sort. If they get powerful enough, they can reduce a country to a bunch of warring militia. As Greatbong mentioned recently, a multicultural society like Lebanon has got reduced to a bunch of warring militias. You don't want that to happen to India.

Tejas said...

I am flabbergasted at post to say the very least. The very fact that you have brought economic indicators into this equation says volumes about you as a person.
For one, there are more important things than GDP growth like self respect, value for life etc. These are fundamental assurances given by any self respecting Gov to its citizens. And by your same argument, if the same terror attacks continue, over a period of time, Inda will lose investments, business and even sports teams will refuse to tour.