Response

Until technological developments put massed forces at an advantage over the individual once again (an advantage that dissipated with recent transportation and communications developments), I would say that American options for a foolproof defense against terrorism remain limited. My best hazard at a strategy would require us to take two steps:

A) Keep anyone with the capability of reaching domestic soil (either personally or via weaponry) happy.

B) When A cannot be achieved (since nothing will keep everyone happy simultaneously), ensure that unhappy campers cannot reach you.

This is likely impossible. However, if we narrow our specification in B from 'unhappy campers' to 'unhappy campers who are likely to kill you,' feasibility increases dramatically.

Since the principal technologies responsible for the empowerment of terrorist groups (for planning, operations, recruitment, etc) are transportation and communications technology, denying 'unhappy campers who are likely to kill you' access to such resources, should, if I am correct, effectively accomplish B. In order to do so, I imagine that the following becomes necessary:

i) Establish a geographical zone where access to the global communications grid (via satellite, microwave, cable, or any other medium), as well as aviation and maritime transportation assets (including trade) is prohibited. Seal any land borders of said zone.

ii) Enforce prohibitions with force.

iii) Emplace 'unhappy campers who are likely to kill you' therein.

Star This to Save in Your Profile