My Thoughts on the Mumbai Attacks

It has been a about month since the deadly attacks in Mumbai, India and I have had sometime to contemplate the matter. I have come to two sobering conclusions: the attacks were not 100% percent preventable and they could happen in the USA.

Given the nature of the attacks, I do see how steps could have been taken to make them less likely, or harder to execute, but it would be impossible to prevent them outright. This could be said of terrorism in general, however, this is even more true with the Mumbai attacks.

There are things that could have been done to make the attacks less likely, or the body count lower. First, police around the world, especially in India, are poorly equipment and not well trained. The simple solution would be to properly equip and train law enforcement; this is easier said than done. This takes money, oftentimes more money than local and federal governments have. I have been to India and I can tell you that the infrastructure there is greatly lacking. If India had first responders like those found in western countries, many of the dead would merely be wounded.

While the situation is worse in India, I am not sure western police would fair much better. Consider how around the world, and especially in the USA, most cops are armed with pistols and/or shotguns. Even the best pistols and shotguns are no match semi-automatic rifles (see my article on analyzing pistols and rifles:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/346426/rifles_vs_pistols.html?cat=11). Even western law enforcement agencies do not have the money to equip "beat cops" with rifles. They are more expensive and take more training to use properly. Furthermore, they are more difficult to maintain. Police officers will always need pistols, so now a department has the added expense, and headache, of training every officer on a designated rifle (probably at an outdoor firing range). This costs money, lots of it.

Policy agencies are not designed to deal with an attack of the magnitude of went took place in Mumbai. They are for "policing" not military operations. Consider the Hollywood shootout that took place in 1997. Two bank robbers armed with AK-47's and body armor kept over 300 police officers at bay for a couple of hours. Luckily, only the perpetrators died but bare in mind they were only trying to rob a bank; they were not trying to kill civilians.

Better weapons for law enforcement will help, but I still do not think it would be enough to stop determined attackers. At the very least every department should have some rifles(and men trained to use them) at hand. Some SWAT teams cannot not even stop armored attackers as they use MP5's (pistol caliber submachine guns). Giving these guys armor piercing ammunition would help some (and be cost effective) but it only helps towards one piece of the problem.

Terrorists, by their nature, have an inherent advantage over law enforcement. They get to pick the time and place of their battlefield. They can spy and conduct rehearsals on their target ground. They can train, train, and train for only one scenario - theirs. Police must train and prepare for a wide variety of scenarios. As such there is no "magic bullet" solution.

Tighter gun control might help, but it might make things worse too. Consider that India's gun laws are far more strict than those in America. Even where gun laws exist, determined terrorists break the law and find ways of circumventing measures that try to prevent them from obtaining firearms. When an attack does occur it makes things worse as most, if not all, of the population is unarmed. I just could not see a small arms attack, like the one in Mumbai, being as lethal if it took place in Israel or Texas. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies in countries with strict gun laws, can become lax and weak because they rarely encounter armed foes. It is hard to petition a city government for state-of-the-art weapons in a place where no one owns a gun. Gun violence is not seen as a threat because it is rare and there are other more pressing law enforcement concerns.

Lastly, even if terrorists were unable to obtain firearms, they would simple resort to another method of attack (like the gas attack on the Japanese subway system ). I am not saying that armed citizens would prevent small arms attacks; I am saying unarmed citizens would not prevent them either.

For sure, better intelligence would help. However, it would be naïve to think that even the best of intelligence agencies could always stop this kind of attack. Nations with the best Intelligence agencies: Russia, the UK, and the USA have all experienced terrorist attacks. Small arms attacks are relatively simple to plan and execute. They are much cheaper and easier to pull off than the attacks on September 11th.

If you think that terrorist attacks using small arms cannot take place here, consider that they already have. Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Virginia Tech have experienced tragedies that upon close examination are ideology born. Honestly, I am surprised that a small arms attack of the magnitude of the one in Mumbai had not happened sooner.

There is no substitute for eternal vigilance. Also, as unpopular as it may sound, life is uncertain and there are no guarantees. To add some perspective to the situation, but not to take away from the loss of the victim's families, in the Mumbai attacks about 200 people died. In India over 10,000 people die a year from snake bites (Public Library of Science Medicine).