[82362] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: London incidents
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com)
Wed Jul 13 05:35:32 2005
In-Reply-To: <FD95BA39-5BFF-4178-A341-627ABBFBA9CD@ianai.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:35:07 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 0034A6F98025703D_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> So you "jumped into this cat fight" by "speculating" on something
> when you had an authoritative source with good, specific information.
Let's look at a different source of different information
on the same theme.
It is undeniable that London Transport shut down the entire
underground network on the day of the bombings right out
to the ends of the lines in the suburbs. And it is undeniable
that they shut down the bus network within Central London.
Thames river boats continued to run right through the centre
of the city and most mainline trains continued to operate
except at Kings Cross station.
Was this a good thing? Did it make people safer? Did it
somehow limit the damage? Or did it magnify the effect
of the terrorists by creating a massive denial of service
effect in the city?
Another data point. 3 of the bombs exploded virtually
simultaneously, either through timing devices (no evidence
of timers has been found) or through suicide bombers
synchronising their watches. It is now virtually certain
that these were suicide bombers. However on of the bombs
exploded almost half an hour later on a bus. Given that
there are bombs in the city ready to go off, either with
timers or triggered by a suicide bomber, are people made
safer by shutting down transport systems? Many of the
people who died in that bus bomb were on the bus because
the underground trains had shut down. And if the suicide
bomber was not in a bus, where would he be? In another train?
In a crowded street?
Real security is tough, very tough, because seemingly
obvious decisions can have repercussions many steps
removed from the decision itself. I didn't feel any
safer stuck in an underground train waiting to find
out what was the problem. I didn't feel any safer crammed
into a crowded bus after the tube system shut down.
But I did feel a lot safer walking home after I realised
that I was not going to make it into the city that day.
Here in London, people talk a lot about business as ususal.
But last Thursday, the actions of the authorities in shutting
down the entire tube system and the bus system in Central
London were clearly not business as usual.
Personally, I believe that the best way to secure the
transport infrastructure is diversity. Lots of buses, tube
trains, mainline trains, trams, taxis, shuttles, cars,
boats etc. If the authorities had subscribed to that philosophy
then they would have kept the systems running instead of
shutting them down.
--Michael Dillon
--=_alternative 0034A6F98025703D_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
<br><font size=2><tt>> So you "jumped into this cat fight"
by "speculating" on something <br>
> when you had an authoritative source with good, specific information.<br>
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Let's look at a different source of different information
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>on the same theme.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>It is undeniable that London Transport shut down the
entire</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>underground network on the day of the bombings right
out</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>to the ends of the lines in the suburbs. And it is
undeniable</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>that they shut down the bus network within Central
London.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>Thames river boats continued to run right through
the centre</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>of the city and most mainline trains continued to
operate</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>except at Kings Cross station.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Was this a good thing? Did it make people safer? Did
it</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>somehow limit the damage? Or did it magnify the effect</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>of the terrorists by creating a massive denial of
service</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>effect in the city?</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Another data point. 3 of the bombs exploded virtually</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>simultaneously, either through timing devices (no
evidence</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>of timers has been found) or through suicide bombers</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>synchronising their watches. It is now virtually certain</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>that these were suicide bombers. However on of the
bombs</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>exploded almost half an hour later on a bus. Given
that</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>there are bombs in the city ready to go off, either
with</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>timers or triggered by a suicide bomber, are people
made</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>safer by shutting down transport systems? Many of
the</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>people who died in that bus bomb were on the bus because
</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>the underground trains had shut down. And if the suicide</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>bomber was not in a bus, where would he be? In another
train?</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>In a crowded street?</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Real security is tough, very tough, because seemingly</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>obvious decisions can have repercussions many steps</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>removed from the decision itself. I didn't feel any</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>safer stuck in an underground train waiting to find</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>out what was the problem. I didn't feel any safer
crammed</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>into a crowded bus after the tube system shut down.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>But I did feel a lot safer walking home after I realised</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>that I was not going to make it into the city that
day.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Here in London, people talk a lot about business as
ususal.</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>But last Thursday, the actions of the authorities
in shutting</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>down the entire tube system and the bus system in
Central</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>London were clearly not business as usual.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>Personally, I believe that the best way to secure
the</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>transport infrastructure is diversity. Lots of buses,
tube</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>trains, mainline trains, trams, taxis, shuttles, cars,</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>boats etc. If the authorities had subscribed to that
philosophy</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>then they would have kept the systems running instead
of</tt></font>
<br><font size=2><tt>shutting them down.</tt></font>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>--Michael Dillon</tt></font>
<br>
--=_alternative 0034A6F98025703D_=--
