Explosion at Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, UK

[WFU71]

Focus on shifting to renewable energy and domestic sources of energy? Sounds good. I think you're going to find there's a lot of support from the left in this regard.

Any thoughts on thorium powered molten salt reactors?
http://www.businessinsider.com/thorium-molten-salt-reactors-sorensen-lftr-2017-2

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/what-is-molten-salt-reactor-424343/

"Not only do MSRs not have a long term waste issue, they can be used to dispose of current stockpiles of nuclear waste by using those stockpiles as fuel. Even stockpiles of plutonium can be disposed of this way. In fact, conventional reactors typically use only 3-to-5% of the available energy in their fuel rods before the fuel rods must be replaced because of cracking. MSRs can use up most of the rest of the available fuel in these rods to make electricity.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

That still doesn't prevent the attack. The bomber here allegedly went to Libya shortly before the attack and is a British citizen. Restricting immigration and closing the borders literally would have done nothing to stop this.

It could certainly lessen the probability (kenpom ftw bitches) of the attack succeeding. One dude trying to pull it off solo is less likely than a team working together to pull it off. Plus, it obviously reduces the chances of the remaining team members luring in another native action man for the next event.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

It could certainly lessen the probability (kenpom ftw bitches) of the attack succeeding. One dude trying to pull it off solo is less likely than a team working together to pull it off. Plus, it obviously reduces the chances of the remaining team members luring in another native action man for the next event.

How? In the current situation (as we understand the facts at present) a British citizen blew himself up, a couple of his brothers are under arrest (also British citizens), and he was apparently radicalized under the radar in his home neighborhood and had taken visits to Libya.

I'm not trying to be dense, but as far as we know at this point there hasn't been any evidence of someone from Libya coming to England to radicalize this guy. He went to them.

 

[Deacsfan27]

It could certainly lessen the probability (kenpom ftw bitches) of the attack succeeding. One dude trying to pull it off solo is less likely than a team working together to pull it off. Plus, it obviously reduces the chances of the remaining team members luring in another native action man for the next event.

I think his original point is that the odds of a terrorist attack are already extremely low, and the law of diminishing returns on those efforts come into play at some point.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I think his original point is that the odds of a terrorist attack are already extremely low, and the law of diminishing returns on those efforts come into play at some point.

Eh, the odds of a black person being killed by a cop are already extremely low, and the law of diminishing returns hasn't had any effect on major efforts in preventing more from happening. The odds of being killed by someone going 65 mph as compared to someone going 80 mph are already extremely low, but the law of diminishing returns hasn't come into play with regard to speed limits.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

How? In the current situation (as we understand the facts at present) a British citizen blew himself up, a couple of his brothers are under arrest (also British citizens), and he was apparently radicalized under the radar in his home neighborhood and had taken visits to Libya.

I'm not trying to be dense, but as far as we know at this point there hasn't been any evidence of someone from Libya coming to England to radicalize this guy. He went to them.

So you choose to believe. And that is the problem with a lot of these terrorist events, on both sides. We see/hear what the respective agencies want us to see/hear, and then we see the resulting policy, but there may or may not be big gaps in what we get to see. And I am far from a conspiracy theorist, but I do recognize that there is probably a lot of information that we are not privy to, and for good reason. We just have to trust that our leaders are well informed and smart enough to make the right decisions, which has obviously been a huge question mark with Bush, Obama, and now Trump.

 

[Deacsfan27]

Eh, the odds of a black person being killed by a cop are already extremely low, and the law of diminishing returns hasn't had any effect on major efforts in preventing more from happening. The odds of being killed by someone going 65 mph as compared to someone going 80 mph are already extremely low, but the law of diminishing returns hasn't come into play with regard to speed limits.

What would you suggest the United States do to prevent these types of attacks on American soil?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

What would you suggest the United States do to prevent these types of attacks on American soil?

Whatever we are doing is working relatively well, as (knock on wood) we have had relatively few of them compared to Europe. The ocean obviously helps, but I think that supports the idea that physical access, or lack thereof, is a significant causation factor.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

i wonder if any chicks have experienced (endured) a doofi tag team

i've never seen a chick w/ two strap ons but I'm sure it's possible

 

[Deacsfan27]

Whatever we are doing is working relatively well, as (knock on wood) we have had relatively few of them compared to Europe. The ocean obviously helps, but I think that supports the idea that physical access, or lack thereof, is a significant causation factor.

I think it's important to note where the terrorist attacks are coming from in the United States as well. As you said, the ocean certainly helps prevent people who have bad intentions of coming to the USA to commit an act of terror, but 80% of terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been US cits or permanent residents.

The stereotype of the foreign terrorist infiltrator is outdated, according to the New America think tank. The organization has compiled its own data on patterns of terrorism in the United States, which unlike Cato’s focuses on jihadist terrorism in the country following 9/11. The dataset includes people charged with terrorism-related crimes, not just those convicted, as well as U.S. citizens and residents rather than solely foreigners.

“[E]very jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident,” New America reports. During that time period, more than 80 percent of individuals who were charged with or died engaging in jihadist terrorism or related activities inside the United States have been U.S. citizens or permanent residents (the tally also includes Americans accused of engaging in such activity abroad). Many have been second-generation immigrants: The Orlando nightclub attacker, for instance, was a U.S. citizen and son of Afghan immigrants. One of the San Bernardino shooters was a U.S. citizen and son of Pakistani immigrants; the other, Tashfeen Malik, was a Pakistani national and conditional U.S. permanent resident who came to the United States on a fiancee visa.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

 

[MHBDemon]

Eh, the odds of a black person being killed by a cop are already extremely low, and the law of diminishing returns hasn't had any effect on major efforts in preventing more from happening. The odds of being killed by someone going 65 mph as compared to someone going 80 mph are already extremely low, but the law of diminishing returns hasn't come into play with regard to speed limits.

And you get a false equivalence! And you get a false equivalence!

 

[ibleedgoldandblack]

i wonder if any chicks have experienced (endured) a doofi tag team

i've never seen a chick w/ two strap ons but I'm sure it's possible

I refuse to let this post go unacknowledged.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

i've never seen a chick w/ two strap ons but I'm sure it's possible

Must spread around rep.

This was solid.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I think it's important to note where the terrorist attacks are coming from in the United States as well. As you said, the ocean certainly helps prevent people who have bad intentions of coming to the USA to commit an act of terror, but 80% of terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been US cits or permanent residents.





https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/trump-immigration-ban-terrorism/514361/

Right, and there have been relatively few of them. But you see more in Europe, where it is easier for the foreign radicals to influence the natives because of physical proximity. Not every US wannabe whackjob has the ability to fly to Lybia to get immersed. That doesn't mean some still won't do bad shit, but it may mean much fewer will do bad shit and it is easier for our authorities to thwart those who try.

 

[Deacsfan27]

The contention I have with how the USA is handling it now comes with the sweeping laws that Trump wants to put into place. Aside from being unconstitutional (as demonstrated by SCOTUS' rulings), I just don't think it would help that much. That link I included above shows where the terrorists who have committed acts on American soil are coming from, and it's not from the countries he wants to ban from America. To scapegoat the Syrian refugees for these issues is beyond disingenuous, and just shows a complete lack of understanding from Trump/the government.

As Numbers suggested, Saudi Arabia seems to be the biggest cause of the problems, but we just keep working with them/making arms deals with them.

 

[HoosierDeac]

My random thoughts:
Obviously the nature of terror attacks is to cause a greatly outsized level of psychological damage comparative to the actual physical damage. (Allow me to be completely clinical/statistical in a situation that obviously isn't clinical). So basically, in the very small chance you happened to be at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, your chance of death was still only about 1 in 1,000. So this is an astronomically small chance, compared to say driving to the grocery store. Is it possible to objectively assess risk/take into account diminishing returns? Perhaps a $1 billion spent toward increased security systems, etc would be better spent instead toward, say, cancer research, in that the ultimate outcome would mean more lives saved? How do we go about thinking about this?

 

[Liquid Karma]

Focus on shifting to renewable energy and domestic sources of energy? Sounds good. I think you're going to find there's a lot of support from the left in this regard.

Just so long as it doesn't involve nuclear power.

 

[jhmd2000]

Just so long as it doesn't involve nuclear power.

As we know, Eastern North Carolina has undergone a significant economic setback since PhDeac left the area. I was reading about a company that is turning what amounts to scrap harvested wood into pellitized end product to be used as a burning energy supplement. Apparently wood burns "cleaner" than coal, and Europe is going crazy for the stuff. The company described ENC as the "Fiber Basket" of American energy; a/k/a the Saudi Arabia of trees. As an "All of the above" energy guy, I would be glad to include a North Carolina-based cleaner energy solution in our mix.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

I heard the tail end of a segment on NPR but it sounds like this guy was actually on the radar of British intelligence but they didn't think he was capable of doing carrying out an attack of this magnitude.

 

[Deacsfan27]

My random thoughts:
Obviously the nature of terror attacks is to cause a greatly outsized level of psychological damage comparative to the actual physical damage. (Allow me to be completely clinical/statistical in a situation that obviously isn't clinical). So basically, in the very small chance you happened to be at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, your chance of death was still only about 1 in 1,000. So this is an astronomically small chance, compared to say driving to the grocery store. Is it possible to objectively assess risk/take into account diminishing returns? Perhaps a $1 billion spent toward increased security systems, etc would be better spent instead toward, say, cancer research, in that the ultimate outcome would mean more lives saved? How do we go about thinking about this?

Yes, this is my thought on it as well.