Why haven't there been more attacks?

[Zugzwang]

It seems to me that carrying out a 'terrorist attack' would be really, really simple. The explosives aren't hard to make (RDX for example is just red fuming nitric acid and hexamine; and the Tsaernaev's just dumped a bunch of fireworks into a pressure cooker) and it's not like it's very difficult to find a populated location.

 

Now of course it's a really good thing they don't happen more frequently; but why not?

[lil weasel]

Because we are protected by our ever vigilant secret services.

 

[Toke]

Because most Americans aren't complete and utter psychopaths with a axe to grind against a nation that in all likelihood never did them any harm?

[CryptReaperDorian]

 

Because most Americans aren't complete and utter psychopaths with a axe to grind against a nation that in all likelihood never did them any harm?

Exactly. The "media" tends to glorify the rotten apples to the point that many of us feel like we probably live in the same home as said psychopaths.

 

However, the question at hand is still a very, very good one. One shouldn't feel akward for knowing how to make some sort of simplistic "destructive device" because they are just very. . . simplistic. Hell, I bet many of us had teachers demonstrating violent chemical reactions (at a very small scale of course) in school. I'd actually be concerned about one's intelligence instead if they couldn't figure out how to make a Molotov cocktail, which is as simple as it gets, after looking at one for their first time.

[Acehilm]

The fact that no one has planned or carried out another attack if because they aren't f*ckin' insane enough to. Look what happened to the past terrorists - either captured or killed.

[lil weasel]

Explosives Incidents in the United States

The following statistics are based upon explosives incidents reported to the USBDC, including bombings, attempted bombings, incendiary bombings, stolen explosives and other categories.

 

Year	No. of Explosives Incidents	No. of Injuries	No. of Fatalities
2012*	4,033	37	1
2011	5,219	36	5
2010	4,897	99	22
2009	3,886	57	4
2008	4,198	97	15
2007	3,143	60	15
2006	3,797	135	14
2005	4,031	148	19
2004	3,919	263	36

*The number of incidents reported for 2012 were derived from BATS on February 6, 2013, and represent incidents that occurred between January 1 and October 31, 2012.

 

[Adler]

Now of course it's a really good thing they don't happen more frequently; but why not?

Maybe people just don't want to.

[Typhus]

Easy - the terrorists lack any imagination and insist on trying to take obvious targets.

Had they even an ounce of intelligence between them, they could have caused a great deal more carnage - I don't want to say how but it's obvious to anyone with a brain that there are unguarded segments of soceity that could be attacked freely and no one would ever imagine it as a possibility.

They're amateurs and they lack imagination or sufficient ruthlessness.

[sivispacem]

Primarily because the number of people motivated to commit violent acts of terror is minuscule. In particular relation to explosives, knowledge amongst most people is very limited and access to firearms is almost universally easier than the large quantities of precursors required to make sizeable explosive devices. You say that RDX is just RFNA and Hexamethylenetetramine, which is true, but the actually reaction process is pretty dangerous and the latter chemical is hard to buy in any kind of quantity. Pretty much the only ways that Hexamethylenetetramine is available to the general public is in sub-1g fuel pellets or as a compound in food additives which aren't registered for legal use by the FDA in the US anyway. Hence the propensity towards simpler explosives like ANFO and TATP in improvised explosive devices, which have much lower detonation velocities and are therefore less dangerous as weapons.

 

Mostly, though, it's because the risk from terrorism is extremely low. A grand total of about 35 US citizens have died in terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11- the largest single incident being the Fort Hood shooting. The likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack in the US is about one-tenth of dying in a lightning strike.

[JOSEPH X]

With 72 virgins on offer, I too am surprised.

[Icarus]

With 72 virgins on offer, I too am surprised.

If you're a male terrorist, no one promised you they were female virgins. For all you know, you could get to the afterlife and be given a present of 72 male virgins.

[I cucked Alex Jones]

With 72 virgins on offer, I too am surprised.

If you're a male terrorist, no one promised you they were female virgins. For all you know, you could get to the afterlife and be given a present of 72 male virgins.

Allah is a cruel master.

[ExtremoMania]

Explosives Incidents in the United States

The following statistics are based upon explosives incidents reported to the USBDC, including bombings, attempted bombings, incendiary bombings, stolen explosives and other categories.

 

Year	No. of Explosives Incidents	No. of Injuries	No. of Fatalities
2012*	4,033	37	1
2011	5,219	36	5
2010	4,897	99	22
2009	3,886	57	4
2008	4,198	97	15
2007	3,143	60	15
2006	3,797	135	14
2005	4,031	148	19
2004	3,919	263	36

*The number of incidents reported for 2012 were derived from BATS on February 6, 2013, and represent incidents that occurred between January 1 and October 31, 2012.

How come you get those statistics view?

[bluetops]

I'm still waiting for a Joker-like terrorist. A terrorist that just do everything for fun. A terrorist that just wants to watch the world burn.

 

But the psychopaths still have a bit of human in them.

[Johan]

Because security has been much tighter than ever since 9/11, at least here in New York. People are much more aware of dangers, thanks to the motto here and in many other places "If you see something say something"

[GoldenBlade]

There haven't been more MAJOR bombings, because people don't risk taking the consequences. It either ends up in you being killed, or going to jail for a LOONG time (most likely for life).

[na89340qv0n34b09q340]

Lots of things are easy to pull off, including my pants. The reason I don't pull off my pants is because I have no reason to, and I don't want to face consequences just because I could do something.

 

Not everyone is angry at the world, and if they are then they usually take it out on their spouse, or bedroom wall, or something.

[Mr. Scratch]

It's a good thing terrorists don't practice urbex,subway tunnels and buildings are the most visited locations.

[Zugzwang]

Primarily because the number of people motivated to commit violent acts of terror is minuscule. In particular relation to explosives, knowledge amongst most people is very limited and access to firearms is almost universally easier than the large quantities of precursors required to make sizeable explosive devices. You say that RDX is just RFNA and Hexamethylenetetramine, which is true, but the actually reaction process is pretty dangerous and the latter chemical is hard to buy in any kind of quantity. Pretty much the only ways that Hexamethylenetetramine is available to the general public is in sub-1g fuel pellets or as a compound in food additives which aren't registered for legal use by the FDA in the US anyway. Hence the propensity towards simpler explosives like ANFO and TATP in improvised explosive devices, which have much lower detonation velocities and are therefore less dangerous as weapons.

 

Mostly, though, it's because the risk from terrorism is extremely low. A grand total of about 35 US citizens have died in terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11- the largest single incident being the Fort Hood shooting. The likelihood of dying in a terrorist attack in the US is about one-tenth of dying in a lightning strike.

You might not be able to buy lots of hexamine but you can buy formaldehyde and ammonia and mix them together. It's pretty simple.

 

I suppose the conclusion that there just aren't that many people interested in the idea is plausible.

[sivispacem]

You might not be able to buy lots of hexamine but you can buy formaldehyde and ammonia and mix them together. It's pretty simple.

In terms of basic chemistry, sure. But the number of people who possess the knowledge, wherewithal and intent to produce high explosive precursors as part of a plot to bomb targets is pretty negligible. Particularly so in relation to Islamic extremism, which is the form of domestic terrorism in the US that seems to have the greatest propensity towards explosives. The average IQ of people involved in these plots is generally quite low- hence explosives tending to be ANFO, which can be bought in bulk, and TATP, which is extremely easy to produce in large quantities. That isn't to say that a dedicated person couldn't produce an explosive device made from more potent high explosives, but why bother when it's easier and cheaper just to use ANFO or ANNM, and much more of it, for half the cost and none of the time.

[King Of Monra]

Because most Americans aren't complete and utter psychopaths with a axe to grind against a nation that in all likelihood never did them any harm?

Oh, you think terror attacks only happends in the US?

 

That's cute.

[lil weasel]

Americans have always been self-righteous mugs. Better to shoot somebody with the found under the trash on every street gun than work to make a big-bang.

[Chunkyman]

The terrorist attacks are far from over.

 

 

 

 

[theNGclan]

Because not everyone is crazy.

[ryuclan]

Short answer is...because people have lives to live.

[Saggy]

There have been a number of alleged terror plots/bombings that have been thwarted in the U.S. since 9/11. So combined with the fact that there's not a lot of people planning these types of attacks, we seem to be pretty good at catching them before they do.

[ExtremoMania]

Americans have always been self-righteous mugs. Better to shoot somebody with the found under the trash on every street gun than work to make a big-bang.

Then how come Americans used their smart bombs to destroy caves during Osama's hunt down?

[Saggy]

 

Americans have always been self-righteous mugs. Better to shoot somebody with the found under the trash on every street gun than work to make a big-bang.

Then how come Americans used their smart bombs to destroy caves during Osama's hunt down?

Because that's the military. They're kind of trained to think, "What is the best way to do this?" and have discipline to not just do things the "easiest way possible". The general populace of the U.S. ( and probably other countries, no U.S. hating here ) is the complete obvious. They want instant gratification.

 

Why should I waste months of time and who knows how much money ( not to mention the risk of being caught ) building a bomb, when I can just go and buy a gun at WalMart in less than an hour?

 

Meanwhile, the type of reactions and sensationalism that occur from these attacks--i.e. the motivating effect to conduct them--is the same whether they use explosives, a gun, or an exacto knife. The only thing that really differs in a huge incident such as the OKC bombing is the lasting effect it has in the minds of people. Incidents like the Boston Marathon Bombing are so grandiose, so bold, that they will be remembered without having to do a Google or Wikipedia search. Meanwhile, incidents like the knife attack in Texas this month, the Aurora theathre shooting, they're becoming so common place that people are more apt to forget them without being reminded of them by a list or some article recounting them. I mean, just think of Columbine... It wasn't the deadliest school shooting, it wasn't the most recent, but because it was in a way the "original", it has such a lasting effect on the mind and was/is in essence the de facto shool-shooting incident most people recall and discuss.

 

It's kind of the difference between someone like Oswald or Booth cementing their place in history for assassinating the president. I mean, even john Hinkley Jr is an infamous name in history, and he didn't even succeed in killing President Reagan or anyone else. It's not the lethality of these types of attacks that create a lasting memory, but more or less the audacity and shock, surprise, etc. I mean, you know that Oswald killed John Kennedy, but can you name the guy who killed Robert Kennedy without using Wikipedia? Why was John's death remembered so much more than Robert's?

 

Anyway I'm rambling here, but long story short... The people who are going to put in the effort to build a bomb are the psychopaths like Oswald and McVeigh who want to remembered, who want to be "famous", whereas I think most people who just snap and conduct a mass-shooting simply want to go out in a blaze of glory and don't really care if their name becomes infamous or not.

 

It takes a special kind of psychopath to go through the time and effort to ensure not only that their attack will be highly lethal, but that it will create a lasting impression on the populace as well.

 

Edit

Who the f*ck is this "Jack Kennedy" guy I mentioned before?

[Toke]

Because most Americans aren't complete and utter psychopaths with a axe to grind against a nation that in all likelihood never did them any harm?

Oh, you think terror attacks only happends in the US?

 

That's cute.

Oh you read the thread title but none of its contents.

 

That's adorable.

[lil weasel]

In America the Christian Religious blow up 'Family Planning' store fronts, and assassinate Medical Doctors to make their point.