Many aspects of modern society have been handled in an unintelligent fashion. In spite of ample warnings of the possibilities, basic measures were not put in place to protect us. Yes, it is easier in retrospect, but an immediate response to recent tragic events should be to fire the people who drew substantial salaries but failed at their duties. Indeed, in some countries, such failures might be considered for criminal negligence. In particular, it would not be a good idea to put the job of improving the system into the hands of the people currently running it. New ideas are badly needed, and these will not come from the same old guard who have been in charge.

As a mathematician and technologist, I can see some novel approaches and strategies. It will be my goal here to briefly sketch them. I believe we can (and must) make our society much safer and that this can be done in a way that does not compromise our civil liberties and that in fact strengthens our economy. There will be a cost in carrying out the required actions and correct adaptations, but it need not be anywhere near the bloated and self-serving estimates coming out now.

There have certainly been mistakes in our foreign policy and these should also be corrected. But not as a reaction to events. Rather, a more intelligent nation will naturally reconsider prior behaviors and replace them with actions that are more humane (and also more productive). But the first task is to deal with terrorism.

Let us carefully consider whom we are dealing with. Civilians and soldiers are quite distinct from the monsters who plan and organize terrorist attacks. The people who carry out the attacks, often willing to throw away their own lives as well, are deranged or deluded fanatics. There are many such individuals but, in general, they are not able to do much harm because they are not able to execute their schemes. It takes monsters to provide them with the necessary means.

Declaring war on entire countries, which might include indiscriminant bombing (or what could be made to look like that) would be to confuse monsters with ordinary soldiers and even civilians. These are different groups and I believe our response should focus on the monsters.

Advantages of this distinction are that (i) many fewer enemies must be dealt with, (ii) costs are lower, (iii) justice is more fairly aportioned and (iv) terrorism will be most severely impeded.

Terrorists who crash airplanes are the fingernails of the organizations which send them. Well-cultivated fingernails, to be sure, but disposable and replaceable. However, the individuals who manage such plans are not nearly as common since they must be both competent and monstrous, a fortunately rare combination. These are the hands and feet, who arrange acceptance into an airflight training school, set up safe-houses and other logistic details. They are also replaceable but the likelihood of being killed might make them a lot less eager to be involved. Then there are the heads of the organizations who actually create the plans. These are the smartest (and the rarest). Above all, we must deal with them. Also, there are those who are knowingly providing the money - either their own or by subverting unconnected organizations by diverting their funds. A full investigation will show that they are scattered across several countries, quite possibly including the U.S. and Europe. Their involvement may be easier to document because of the numerous institutional methods for tracking the flow of money. Cutting off the money may be the single most effective thing we can do.

Note that I am not including rock-throwing Palestinian kids, nor even the local Mullah who eggs them on, but rather the policy level where deliberate acts of mass murder are planned. These individuals deserve a label beyond mere terrorist and I name them for the monstrousness of their actions. Such evil behavior cannot be permitted to exist.

Proving criminality in the courts is a difficult job, as it indeed should be. However, in regards monstrousness, the decision needs to be made on a different basis. This is a significant departure from our traditional policies but I am convinced that we need to make this change - and quickly.

Just as we pretty damn well know the leaders of ``organized crime'' even if there is not sufficient legal proof, it must be possible to determine the top leadership in the organizations involved. Along with the leadership, we should include anyone in the groups who specifically knew of the plan (or other similar ones) and scientific or technical people who collaborated with knowledge of the intent. Especially, the list of monsters should include those who planned or knowingly bankrolled the operation and those business, national and religious leaders who aided and abetted the operation (and similar ones) through public statements or private acts.

A proactive response to terrorism will then be to remove the monsters. I believe that we should not restrict ourselves only to those directly responsible for Tuesday's triple disaster, but that we should definitely include those kindred individuals who would have done so themselves and have demonstrated this through training and prior action. Even if one of them temporarily avoids his fate by crawling into a rat hole, he will be diminished as a threat - and the goal should be to get them all at one fell swoop. (And I am glad to read that so far our national rhetoric now includes this sort of language.)

Just as the terrorists were intelligent enough to recognize flaws in our system and then exploit them in parallel, so we can study their own security provisions, find ways to circumvent them and then strike massively and in parallel against the monsters themselves, at home or in their office. We need to cut off the heads of these organizations - without which even an army of suicidal fanatics is powerless to gain the means and organization to carry out such blood-drenched fantasies of hatred as were seen here two days ago.

However, my own words reveal a great danger in terrorism - the contagiousness of its psychic state. We must not take pleasure in their removal but rather feel sadness at the necessity for such violent and irrevocable actions. The technological methods which will be discussed shortly have the potential to provide nonlethal means for security without which the great society of the world, beginning to emerge in this millennium, will remain (in Lotfi Zadeh's term) ``under-coordinated'' and vulnerable.

While we may wish that we did not have to do so, it is clear that action against the monsters has to be strong and quick. If one group can do this, so can others. Perhaps surgical military options, while not ideal, will provide some temporary protection, but I believe that technology options can be put into action quite soon against the monsters.

Our response meanwhile has to be flexible and intelligent. Using profiling methods that target anyone of Middle Eastern background is far too simple. These are not stupid poeple and if we fixedly focus on one ethnic group, they will shift to another. After all, there are fanatics of all types, including homegrown; and by misdirection and manipulation, it is well-known that individuals can be made to work for groups quite different from those for whom they imagine they are working.

So far, President Bush has acted well and it is gratifying to hear that NATO and other governments are siding with us. It is to be hoped that other governments and all sensible people and groups on the planet will support the U.S. in its response to terrorism. I believe they would be even more supportive of a program to uproot the monstrous individuals who threaten every other person on Earth. But whether or not they agree, we should carry out the program of decaptitation rapidly before buildings become cities or continents.

It is evident that means must be found to guarantee safety in airplanes. Technological methods, somewhat more imaginative and integrated than heretofore used but feasible within the framework of existing development, will be proposed. Also, I will propose a strategy for technological research which should yield the necessary improvements in the military repetoire while remaining relatively inexpensive. Since improved technology can be used in more than one way, a coherent effort to develop what is necessary will have the added benefit of strengthening our economy.

These problems might be approached from various directions but I advocate playing to our strengths in computers, optics, and robotics. On an airplane, one could have an array of small TV cameras (they come chip-sized) wired into a ceiling internet like lightbulbs. Also hidden throughout the passenger cabins could be a number of servo-controlled small fleschette-firing guns. Doors from cabin to cockpit could be reinforced. Most important, it would be possible to control the airplane via satellite and autopilot. The CCD-camera images would be scanned by AI programs for unusual activity patterns and specific objects. Anything triggering a detection state in the program would then alert a remote monitor who could take appropriate action - up to tagging the image of a terrorist so that the automatic planeborne system could hit him in the back of the neck with an instantly paralyzing dart. It would be impossible to gain access to the cockpit since pilots would be prevented, through the externally controlled closure of the door, from mistakenly going to the aid of a flight attendant.

Better still, people who had been previously detained and some others who had been identified as potential threats would be detectable by automatic systems before getting onboard a plane. This could be done through DNA scanning and face-recognition. I believe the flying public would be more than willing to have their identities checked by fast and accurate technology, which cannot grow bored nor be abusive. Ordinary anonymity, which many see as the right of every citizen in a free society, need not be abrogated. Records could be kept but made available only in the case of terrorists acts.

There is a slippery slope on this issue, but as long as we only include those who are intentionally contributing to atrocities, I don't think it will be difficult to make the call. Old-fashioned criminals might be somewhat discommoded, too, but that seems like gravy.

On the issue of how to actually get the monsters, I am going to be deliberately vague. What is needed is a new type of high-tech ninja, able to penetrate through contemporary military security like the Delta Force against a medieval castle. Using existing technology as much as possible, I estimate that a crash project could achieve this within a year.

When the terrorists struck Washington and New York, they hit the two cities I know and love. My friends and neighbors were hurt and killed. This makes me very angry. As the monsters who perpetrated this may be beginning to realize, it is not a good idea to piss off Americans.

pck; Sept. 17, 2001

Back to the Industrial Math homepage