Monday, March 29, 2010

New York Heightens Subway Security For No Apparent Reason Other Than To Make Us Feel Better

Posted by Jonny Diamond on Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:49 PM

bomb sniffing dog
Every time something scary happens anywhere in the world New York City security officials "ramp up security" here at home. This is kind of silly. Take this morning's awful Moscow subway attack. It was terrible. It happened in a large city with a big subway system. It was terrorism. But it was also related to generations of localized violence in a part of the Caucasus that few New Yorkers have ever even heard of (yes, they are Muslim, but they are separatists; they're more like these guys than Al Qaeda).

Does anyone rationally think there could be a correlative terror effect in NYC from Chechen separatists attacking the Moscow metro? I guess this SOP exercise in security PR always makes me worry about what we haven't been doing up to this point. The idea that NYC officials only now have "activated a subway security plan," after random attacks on the other side of the world, gives me the heebie jeebies. As in "Hey guys, are you telling me you haven't been all that concerned about our subways until now? GUYS!? Are we expecting Chechen attacks in Union Square?"

Come to think of it, though, the next few weeks will probably be extra safe in terms of your subway commute, given all the new focus on, well, subway attacks... So, err, thanks, Chechen separatists, for the brief peace of mind on my morning commute. [And no, I'm not actually thanking terrorists for killing 37 innocent people, so calm down.]

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments (4)

Showing 1-4 of 4

Add a comment

Hi Jonny:

It’s a prudent move to increase security on the subways when there’s a seemingly unrelated attack half way across the world. The first reason is exactly what you mentioned - to make people feel safe. It provides a psychological benefit to scared people. Are they safer? To a degree. It’d be nice if the cops were omnipotent and could stop every terrorist plot - but they can’t. They might stop 100 attacks before they’re ever carried out, but all it takes is one to succeed.

Terrorists exploit weakness in security systems when carrying out their attacks. They seldom go up against a group of trained soliders/policemen armed with heavy weapons. A cop with a submachine gun in the subway, while not fun to look at, is indeed a deterrent.

And there are terrorist operatives in the city who are indeed watching how the NYPD reacts. If the NYPD went, “Oh well, it’s Chechen separatists so we don’t have to worry about it" and didn’t deploy a show of force guess what? Terrorists intent on harming New Yorkers will see that as a show of weakness and unpreparedness and exploit it to the max.

As to your dismissal of the NYPD’s ramping up security as PR and you’re writing, "Hey guys, are you telling me you haven't been all that concerned about our subways until now?” you’re sadly misinformed. The NYPD has been trying to prevent terrorist attacks since 9/11. And something tells me those officers on the subways giving you what you facetiously refer to as “peace of mind” aren’t there for PR. They’re putting their lives on the line.

May I remind you of George Orwell’s famous statement, “Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” The NYPD isn’t perfect by any means, but show some respect.

It’s a big bad world out there Jonnny. Sorry if the police protecting you has given you agita. Get your head out of your latte.

report   
Posted by Bob on 03/29/2010 at 10:06 PM

And if a person whose loved one was killed in Moscow read your snarky and tasteless comment about how you can enjoy a safer subway ride because of Chechen terrorists they’d bite your head off - no matter what kind of juvenile disclaimer you write.

report   
Posted by Bob on 03/29/2010 at 10:15 PM

Orwell never said that, actually.

report   
Posted by Mark Asch on 03/30/2010 at 10:34 AM

You know what? I stand corrected. But


In his 1945 "Notes on Nationalism", Orwell claimed that the statement, "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf" was a "grossly obvious” fact. - Source Wikipedia.

So even if Orwell didn’t say those exact words, he agreed with the sentiment.

report   
Posted by Bob on 03/30/2010 at 4:11 PM
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-4 of 4

Add a comment

More by Author

Most Commented On

Most Shared Stories

Top Viewed Stories

Top Topics in The Measure

News (209)


Music (145)


Film (53)


Art (49)


Food & Drink (38)


Sex (36)


Books (26)


Theater (19)


TV (16)


Politics (8)


© 2012 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation