Counter Terrorism balanced on a Razors Edge

For those of you who were not born or really aware of what the world was like before the USSR collapsed, it is hard to imagine what the feeling was like. I wasn't born during the Cuban Missile Crisis, yet much of what may drive the fear of Nukes may come from policy makers who did live during that era and were concerned that the world was about to implode...two men had the opportunity to do that and two men deciding the viability of the planet is quite an unsettling prospect. Lest the realities of those days rather than the circumstances be forgotten, I suggest watching The Day After, Threads, or even simply listen to Sting's "Russians." There are some rather pointed videos worth watching that I could not upload but will provide the hyperlinks. The follow up to those videos is a different animal but with the same gravity in effect. Nuclear missile exchanges on the order of Soviet American scale are less likely than the more probable reality of the suitcase bomb. It doesn't take much to picture a scenario where a determined fanatic takes a small amount of fissile material and climbs to the top of a very high building. Once there, the group makes its statement and then the bomber detonates wiping out 2 square miles or more of urban setting. For cities like Jackson, TN or Conway, Arkansas this is less of a probable event since the more flashy targets are the obvious financial centers or seats of high profile historic, cultural and political value such as DC, Chicago, NY, SanFran, etc. This is hardly a reason to feel relief if one doesn't live in those cities because the after effects would be profound on this country. I've heard one political analyst make an interesting point about the US. Militarily, the US won't be destroyed, in fact, the US cannot be destroyed except perhaps by bankruptcy (and I would also argue pathogenically but that is harder to control for a outside antagonist). Disrupt the financial centers of this country, the power grids, the sea ports and that might just be achieved. Worse still are the possibilities of someone detonating such a bomb in the Saudi Oil fields to send oil shocks around the globe. Such shocks would increase the probability of previously non-hostile countries to become hostile over the suddenly restricted supply. This last point at least makes a good argument for weaning off of petrofuels, but that strays from the human cost of what I'm trying to illustrate. The hyperlinks can be found at You Tube.com :
The last one, an animation, is one of the most disturbing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr4Wy3ABP8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=771eEAAQ11g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK5LtWK787w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSUBEF5JX0Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dmstGIa5jU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJUksMX8qmc
Again, this is not knee jerk. We have past observation and know what it will do. So, there is definitely a fine line to be walked between not becoming a totalitarian state or Starwars like empire verses just throwing caution to the wind and not accepting that there are people in the world who are trying and willing to complete these scenarios.
If you are serious about understanding the problems of balancing desperation of suicidals with TNT strapped on versus maintaining a law abiding state, then there are several sources that can give perspective and are worth reviewing:
The Battle For Algiers (1966) a film about Algerian independence from France - particularly timely since it centers on colonial power, occupation and a struggle for independence.
Gulag Archipelago - if you can make it through volume one you will have learned a great deal but it is time consuming and eye opening
Michael Collins - Starring Liam Neeson and the struggle for independence of Ireland.
Rwanda and Genocide in the 20th Century by Alain Destexhe (about 80 pages)
The Killing Fields - film about Cambodia
Syriana - starring George Clooney and Matt Damon
It is so simple to focus on the flash bang of the news and the devastation that occurs with explosions and violence. The questions that often get thrown out with the garbage, however, are those circulating around the question of why. Before we ever get to the point of nukes should we not examine the reasons why the disaffected individuals act in the ways that they do? Did not The Gauls and Goths throw off the Roman Yoke, American colonists throw off the British Yoke, Algerian the French and so on? Did not also, the Germans persecute the Jews, Crusaders massacre the Arabs, Americans ethnically cleanse its lands of native inhabitants and kick Mexicans out of their original territories through martial aggression? These examples are the easy ones to remember but we as the inheritors of history should not be quick to forget the reasons that so many people in third world countries have grown to hate western society and in particular Americans. We suffer from continued amnesia with regard to how we came to acquire our own rights to determine our future and how many were fought, trampled and moved out of the way in the name of whatever cause suited us. We also tend to regard anyone who disagrees with the American capitalist way of life and fights to keep their traditional ways as obviously an ignorant enemy without understanding their journey and experiences. I would argue that unless we bend our ear more towards the reason and cause of the disaffected around the world, we will continue to shrink in influence and be surrounded from all sides like the Romans. It may not come to nukes - in the best of hopes, but rather bankrupt us financially to match the vain and consumerist people that we are fast becoming.