..it’s not anything I’ve done, but I read an article recently in Wired (Sim City: Terrortown ) about a guy (Chris Suellentrop) who did. The simulation took place in a small New England town called Harbortown, and he sat down with the real life police chief, fire chief, etc. They were supposed to try to keep the city and it’s population safe from the cyberterrorists. They couldn’t.
Now, I guess doing these kinds of simulations are good. But has anybody asked himself the question WHY would there be cyberterrorism against the US? Isn’t that a better way to go?
Let’s say you know that somebody is really angry with you, for whatever reason. So angry this person might want to cause you harm. Do you sit still, barricade yourself somewhere and wait for that someone to come and try to kill you? Or do you try to find a solution to the problem (NO, preemptive strikes are NOT allowed)? Try to see what you can do for this guy so that he doesn’t want to kill you? Talk? Maybe?
Big time politics aren’t as monochromatic as pictured above. It may not be as easy as just saying “let’s talk to the terrorists”, but the hatred against the US isn’t new. I think it’s time to take care of two points:
1) What can the US do to “calm” down anti-US sentiment? It’s as easy as going back throughout the US foreign policy to understand why they are hated in some parts of the world (and not quite as hated in other).
2) What can the US do to improve pro-US sentiment? It’s not the same as 1), since 1) implies accepting having failed and doing wrong.

So, instead of sitting down waiting for someone to strike against you, it’s better to defuse the situation… at least I think so…