Terrorism is insignificant, stop spending money on prevention

[CaptainPanic]

The most important thing that you should realize about terrorists: they're insignificant. Airplanes are considered incredibly safe, yet in the Western countries more people die in aircrashes than from terrorism. So stop being so paranoid, and stop investing so much money in prevention, and in stead invest it in things that DO matter. Don't worry and ignore the media (or at least, when you see how many people die in this-and-this attack - realize that there are almost 7 billion people on earth).

 

In numbers: total deaths in Western countries from terrorism: about 5000 in the last 10 years? That's 3000 in the twin towers, some in Madrid, some in London, and another 1000 in places I never heard of. Note that I exclude Iraq, Afghanistan and a few more countries where they have a war going on.

 

In western countries, there are an (estimated) 800,000,000 people. Odds that you die from terrorism in the next 10 years: 0.0006%... Even if it was a hundred times more, then still, I don't think we should invest so much money and manpower in the prevention.

 

I believe that you can include China, India and South America in this equation as well... but I'm less well-informed about those regions.

 

Who cares if another attack happens? I mean, nobody cares if the flu claims another 1000 victims this winter? That doesn't make headlines. But if someone, anywhere in the world, blows himself up, we almost always hear about it. My neighbour might die in a car crash, and I won't hear about it. Some Afghan dude attempts to kill a soldier, but in stead only kills himself, and it's front page news. Weird world.

 

The main argument that I am expecting here is: "yes, but you don't know how many attacks there would have been if we hadn't invaded the Middle East and constructed all our security measures". And indeed, I hope that you will discuss this issue: is it worth the investment? And shouldn't we invest this enormous amount of money in something else?

[Sayonara]

It's not just the number of attacks, it's the types of attack which are of concern.

 

Do you remember the attack on the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo in 1995? What if it had not been sarin which was released, but a communicable pathogen? Would anyone even know it had been dispersed into the city's transport system until there were multiple hot zones across the city?

 

If you can't predict where and when attacks will occur you have to try to address the source, otherwise you are wide open to an attack which will cost you more lives than whatever level you set as acceptable losses.

[npts2020]

It's not just the number of attacks, it's the types of attack which are of concern.

 

Do you remember the attack on the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo in 1995? What if it had not been sarin which was released, but a communicable pathogen? Would anyone even know it had been dispersed into the city's transport system until there were multiple hot zones across the city?

 

If you can't predict where and when attacks will occur you have to try to address the source, otherwise you are wide open to an attack which will cost you more lives than whatever level you set as acceptable losses.

 

Therein is the problem. "Acceptable losses" is largely a matter of perception. More than ten times the number of people who died in the 9-11 attacks die every single year on our highways but you don't see ten times the money spent on terrorism put toward making our highways safer. It is mostly a scam for someone to make big $$$$ from an "unlimited" government pocketbook. Why do you think the same reaction did not happen after Tim McVeigh demonstrated an alternative use for a rental truck in Oklahoma City?

[Sayonara]

Why do you think the same reaction did not happen after Tim McVeigh demonstrated an alternative use for a rental truck in Oklahoma City?

Because there was nobody with governmental influence at the time who wanted to turn a profit? ** DOES NOT COMPUTE **

 

By comparing deaths from terrorism to deaths on the highways you are comparing apples and oranges. You don't get to side-step the threat from terrorism by stating that the level of loss is a matter of perception, because we know that if a terrorist organisation under the thrall of a group such as the Taleban gets hold of a weaponised biological agent or a nuclear technology they will use it. While I am loathe to adopt the same position as people like Bush and Cheney I am not stupid enough to ignore that it is only a matter of time before such an attack happens.

 

That is why you attack the source, and that is why it is absolutely nothing like people who can't drive or cross a road safely.

[Sisyphus]

The main argument against these types of calculations with regards to terrorism is that its scale can potentially vary enormously, which makes it quite different from something like traffic accidents, where it's more or less consistent and predictable. Is preventing an average of a few hundred deaths a year worth all that? Well, no. But preventing, say, a nuclear bomb in a major city is worth pretty much any price. And not just in terms of the millions of lives. If New York/London/Tokyo were were suddenly vaporized, it would set back the world economy by decades overnight and cause global chaos.

[Kaeroll]

Who cares if another attack happens? I mean, nobody cares if the flu claims another 1000 victims this winter? That doesn't make headlines. But if someone, anywhere in the world, blows himself up, we almost always hear about it. My neighbour might die in a car crash, and I won't hear about it. Some Afghan dude attempts to kill a soldier, but in stead only kills himself, and it's front page news. Weird world.

You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

I think it's more of an ideological thing than a 'cost-benefit analysis'. More about standing up and saying: Wanton violence in the name of [insert cause here] is not acceptable. It's kinda hard to send the same message to the rhinovirus.

 

(Whether it's hypocritical or not for governments to say this is a whole other matter)

[Mokele]

It's also largely a matter of human perception. We see 'caused' things, deliberate acts such as terrorism, as a far worse threat and give it far more attention than 'uncaused' things like accidents or disease. If we can put a face, a mind behind it, it seems much more immediate and dangerous.

[Sisyphus]

It's also largely a matter of human perception. We see 'caused' things, deliberate acts such as terrorism, as a far worse threat and give it far more attention than 'uncaused' things like accidents or disease. If we can put a face, a mind behind it, it seems much more immediate and dangerous.

 

That's definitely true. I think it also has to do with a feeling of control, the same reason far more people are afraid of flying than driving a car, even though statistically the latter is orders of magnitude more dangerous. If I'm going to die violently, I want it to be my own fault, damnit!

[swansont]

It's also largely a matter of human perception. We see 'caused' things, deliberate acts such as terrorism, as a far worse threat and give it far more attention than 'uncaused' things like accidents or disease. If we can put a face, a mind behind it, it seems much more immediate and dangerous.

 

We, in general, are also horrible at assessing risk of uncommon events.

[bascule]

Do you remember the attack on the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo in 1995? What if it had not been sarin which was released, but a communicable pathogen? Would anyone even know it had been dispersed into the city's transport system until there were multiple hot zones across the city?

 

The only limits to terrorism are human creativity. Any smart terrorist is going to try to attack in a creative way which their target will be unprepared for.

 

If you can't predict where and when attacks will occur you have to try to address the source, otherwise you are wide open to an attack which will cost you more lives than whatever level you set as acceptable losses.

 

What is the "source"? Any given person is a potential terrorist, and there's no "origin of terrorism".

[Sayonara]

What is the "source"? Any given person is a potential terrorist, and there's no "origin of terrorism".

Well yes. Hence "try".

[jackson33]

The only limits to terrorism are human creativity. Any smart terrorist is going to try to attack in a creative way which their target will be unprepared for.

 

What is the "source"? Any given person is a potential terrorist, and there's no "origin of terrorism".

 

While any person is a potential threat to society, terrorist or criminal, with in one country, local/State/Federal law enforcement is capable of handling. When you have an organized group with a designed intent to disrupt society anyplace on the planet for specific reasons, involvement of all involved and all the agencies involved are required. I would suggest most the cost are to this end.

 

The 'Source' today comes from an ideology which dates back to 1927 and the 'Islamic Brotherhood', originally a non violent group opposed to Western Cultural influence. Enhance during WWII (Sided with Germany) and the formation of Israel by the United Nations. While I agree the 1.6 Billion Muslims are not all terrorist or in fact agree with those fears of Western Culture, they do in many cases live under Muslim law where their Clergy, predominantly agree with the IB, even to the extent of al-Quaeda and/or their so called franchised extensions.

 

Then, as you say, any smart terrorist is going to attack (place not important) when circumstances are right for success. Probably more than thought, a great deal of preparation is pure talk...and most know that no amount of preparation can prevent all potential threats.

 

As for cost/effective attitudes for lives concerned, the issue is based on not preserving a few or many lives, but the disruption of all lives. After 9/11 and for a year or more most every American and in turn many around the world, suffered some effects of that one series of attacks, many still suffering and those that died were from around the world....

 

CaptainPanic, Google *List of Terrorist Attacks*, go to the Info please site or punch in http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html, for a list of about 50 attacks credited to al-Qaeda, note the the problems in Russia, India and Africa, since the end of WWII with 'Extremism'. I think you'll find many societies have been disrupted or died in the process trying to cope with this one issue.

[waitforufo]

Therein is the problem. "Acceptable losses" is largely a matter of perception. More than ten times the number of people who died in the 9-11 attacks die every single year on our highways but you don't see ten times the money spent on terrorism put toward making our highways safer. It is mostly a scam for someone to make big $$$$ from an "unlimited" government pocketbook. Why do you think the same reaction did not happen after Tim McVeigh demonstrated an alternative use for a rental truck in Oklahoma City?

 

Perhaps it is your accounting that is faulty. How much of the cost of vehicles is based on government regulation intended to make highway travel safe? Not just the car you drive but the vehicles that are used to ship goods? What about warning signs, particularly those electronic models. Then there are those exit soft crash barriers. How about all those upgrades for jersey barriers from the old break away metal crash barriers. All of that adds up to a huge infrastructure of highway and freeway safety based items that all need constant maintenance.

 

Then on top of that, accidents still happen. These accidents result in what one might consider casualties in the war on highway safety. Think of the medical cost and support payments that would not have occurred if this war on safety were called off by closing all of our highways and freeways.

 

I know that last paragraph was a stretch but I'm sure you are counting casualties in the "war on terror" as part of the cost of fighting terrorism.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I forgot the mention the highway patrol. An army of people, vehicles, radios. Those people all need pensions. Then you are required to have insurance. This is like a tax, and if you are not safe you pay more than those that are safe.

 

You know what, I think I'm only scratching the surface. We spend a huge amount of money on highway safety.

[tomgwyther]

Although I disagree with the cost/benefit analysis approach to counter terrorism; Captain panic does have a point.

 

Firstly, road accidents cannot realistically be comparable to terrorism.

If 50 people die when a bus crashes, it is an accident. i.e. Un-planned

If 50 people die when a bus is blown up by a bomb, It is premeditated murder.

But in both cases financial investment is necessary for the prevention of both albeit to the former rather than the latter, due to the statistical reasons put forth in the original post.

 

Captain panic's title (Or part therein) "Terrorism is insignificant" does hold water when it comes to cognitive investment. It's true that you're very unlikely to be killed by terrorist activities, yet we invest an inordinate amount of time worrying about it.

Q: When does a murderer become a terrorist?

A: When we are terrified by it/him/her/them.

When a person partakes in premeditated violence against innocent civilians - by blowing up a bus - they are invariably rewarded for their efforts by global media coverage highlighting their cause, resulting in a somewhat terrified public.

Terrorist acts are not perpetrated to kill per se; but to terrify the larger population.

Thus, if the public refuse to be terrified, then the terrorists efforts are in vain.

 

Investment is needed, but of a vary different kind.

e.g. Lack of investment in airport security at Boston on Sept 11th.

My mother walked straight past airport security with no checks at Boston airport on Sept 10th 2001, she had two hypodermic seringes and a knife in her pocket

Too much investment on 24hour global news coverage of events afterwards.

I've seen pictures of burning towers followed by Bin Laden videos a million times already

Mis-directed investment on Guantanimo bay and various wars

Every time a bomb falls, the terrorist recruiters and gun traffickers rub their hands together at another easy sell

Irrational cognitive investment

More people are injured by office equipment then by terrorist activities

 

In short, don't invest in terror.

 

Beat terrorism by not giving a s**t

[Sayonara]

Firstly, road accidents cannot realistically be comparable to terrorism.

If 50 people die when a bus crashes, it is an accident. i.e. Un-planned

If 50 people die when a bus is blown up by a bomb, It is premeditated murder.

But in both cases financial investment is necessary for the prevention of both albeit to the former rather than the latter, due to the statistical reasons put forth in the original post.

 

Captain panic's title (Or part therein) "Terrorism is insignificant" does hold water when it comes to cognitive investment. It's true that you're very unlikely to be killed by terrorist activities, yet we invest an inordinate amount of time worrying about it.

I thought I had adequately shown that this is insufficient reasoning.

 

The "stick your head in the sand" approach to terrorism only appears to work when you are under threat from nail bombs in pubs, exploding buses, and the like, and it only feels like it is working because you personally are sufficiently insulated from the effects to be able to callously ignore them. Find me an example of a terrorist campaign which ended because the people in the target populace ignored it into submission.

 

 

We are entering an age in which dirty nukes, plagues, and infrastructure sabotage could be much more easily employed to kill tens of thousands of people and seriously disrupt the economy.

 

Imagine you are responsible (solely or jointly, whichever) for the nation's security. Let's say it's the nation you currently live in to make things simple. You don't invest any money in anti-terrorism, and you tell those lobby groups who complain about this to stick their fingers in their ears and chant "la la la, we can't hear you" at terrorism.

 

Then one day there's a concerted strike on your population within your own borders. Explosions are popping off in city centres across the land, and radioactive anthrax-laden dust is being blown across thousands of acres of residential suburbs. Two million dead in the first three hours. Ten million by the end of the first day. Fifty million casualties after three days, and a collapsed health system. There are no emergency services outside the hot zones. Power, water, and gas are sporadic at best. Education, manufacturing and commerce effectively grind to a halt.

 

Try and imagine your administration surviving that, never mind your economy or your country's spirit.

 

 

Counter-terrorism is just one of those things that you have to do. A government has a responsibility to protect its citizens, and this is one aspect of that. If people are incredulous as to where all the money goes, it does not just magically vanish. You don't hear about what it gets spent on because it's somewhat counter-productive to publicise details of operational expenses.

 

Counter-terrorism is largely intelligence led, and whenever you have intelligence led activity you basically have a very high demand for large numbers of skilled personnel. And that costs a fortune.

[bascule]

We are entering an age in which dirty nukes, plagues, and infrastructure sabotage could be much more easily employed to kill tens of thousands of people and seriously disrupt the economy.

 

Yes, and this further compounds the "anyone is a potential terrorist" problem.

 

It's becoming increasingly easier to become a terrorist. Terrorists have access to military grade encryption. In fact terrorists can make virtually untappable Internet phone calls using Skype. Want to build a bomb? Want to build a dirty bomb? Google can tell you how!

[padren]

CaptianPanic - you give the casualty numbers, but recall the effects on people's psyche and the impact on the economy from 9/11 and terrorism has a pretty large effect. We do face new real threats that are outside any scale seen before thanks to biological and nuclear technology becoming more prolific and widespread.

 

New Orleans never suffered much damage from hurricanes in the past, but it only took one to prove that a bit more money spent on levies could have been really handy. The problem with fighting terrorism is not unlike planning for natural disasters - you may throw a lot of money at them and never have a real problem arise, but if you do, there's no do-overs.

 

I will say that it's easy to go overboard and also throw money at the wrong places that give the appearance of safety while doing little of actual good. That, and I think being so fearful that you compromise on your values (civil rights, privacy, funding torture, etc) is a big mistake. Terrorism may be a overhyped threat, but it is far from insignificant and can result in costs much higher than any previous indicators.

[CaptainPanic]

(Apologies for length)

A few times I heard that “damaging the economy for decades” is something that can be caused by terrorism. Yet, the current economic crisis…

 

Because there was nobody with governmental influence at the time who wanted to turn a profit? ** DOES NOT COMPUTE **

 

By comparing deaths from terrorism to deaths on the highways you are comparing apples and oranges. You don't get to side-step the threat from terrorism by stating that the level of loss is a matter of perception, because we know that if a terrorist organisation under the thrall of a group such as the Taleban gets hold of a weaponised biological agent or a nuclear technology they will use it. While I am loathe to adopt the same position as people like Bush and Cheney I am not stupid enough to ignore that it is only a matter of time before such an attack happens.

 

That is why you attack the source, and that is why it is absolutely nothing like people who can't drive or cross a road safely.

 

That is pretty much what I was thinking would be the main response here. People are assuming that:

1. Taliban or other groups are actually are capable of developing the same weapons that the world’s main powers developed… or at least able to obtain them somewhere.

2. That they’re able to travel across the world with it.

3. That the current security checks and bombings in Afghanistan are able to stop them.

 

In fact, people are not only assuming this, but from the replies here, I get the idea that they get a bit pissed off if you don’t agree with these points (does that mean it’s like a religion, and not science?)…

 

Personally I doubt points 1 and 3.

 

1. Taliban are mostly interested in suppressing the local population into the Sharia (fundamentalist islam law). The majority is illiterate (!). The type of weapons that kill millions are actually pretty hard to make, and require a lot of resources and organization.

2. Anyone can travel anywhere with enough money. And anyway, the biggest threat does not necessarily come from a Muslim from the Middle East.

3. There is overwhelming evidence that practically anything can be smuggled to anywhere, despite all security.

 

It's not just the number of attacks, it's the types of attack which are of concern.

 

Do you remember the attack on the Tokyo subway by Aum Shinrikyo in 1995? What if it had not been sarin which was released, but a communicable pathogen? Would anyone even know it had been dispersed into the city's transport system until there were multiple hot zones across the city?

 

If you can't predict where and when attacks will occur you have to try to address the source, otherwise you are wide open to an attack which will cost you more lives than whatever level you set as acceptable losses.

 

In fact, nature can make diseases that are capable of wiping out continents. However, the budget of the research being done in this field is totally negligible compared to the war(s?) on terrorism.

 

What of global warming? We might say that both terrorism and global warming pose quite a serious threat. Both are caused by mankind. Both will have uncertain consequences. But I'm sure that the war on terror receives more money. (And I actually think that global warming can be far more devastating on the long term).

 

The main argument against these types of calculations with regards to terrorism is that its scale can potentially vary enormously, which makes it quite different from something like traffic accidents, where it's more or less consistent and predictable. Is preventing an average of a few hundred deaths a year worth all that? Well, no. But preventing, say, a nuclear bomb in a major city is worth pretty much any price. And not just in terms of the millions of lives. If New York/London/Tokyo were were suddenly vaporized, it would set back the world economy by decades overnight and cause global chaos..

 

Well… that’s my point: With the current 6,700,000,000 people on earth, and an idealized life expectancy of 80 yrs, an average of 84 million people die every year from any cause (I guess mostly disease, hunger, war and old age).

The economic crash that you mention will come from an emotional outburst where people just stop thinking rational. World War II devastated a number of continents, and that took about a decade to rebuild. One city is a bad thing, no doubt… but still no big deal for humanity or the world’s economy… unless everybody just panics. If the world population as a whole stops going to work... then yes.

 

The economic crisis following 9/11 was caused by a panic reaction on stock markets, not by actual economic loss of value.

 

Earthquakes and hurricanes can have a similar effect. Except that people don’t panic, but actually unite and help. Sounds stupid, but a good disaster can actually give a boost to the economy.

 

It's also largely a matter of human perception. We see 'caused' things, deliberate acts such as terrorism, as a far worse threat and give it far more attention than 'uncaused' things like accidents or disease. If we can put a face, a mind behind it, it seems much more immediate and dangerous.

 

I agree. This is the issue. Mostly emotional.

 

We, in general, are also horrible at assessing risk of uncommon events.

 

People read in the newspaper, and extrapolate.

 

What is the "source"? Any given person is a potential terrorist, and there's no "origin of terrorism".

 

Another reason to ignore it. If even your neighbour can be a terrorist, then surely you cannot defend against it. I’m not saying that you should be handing out knives to strangers in the streets and tell them you’re loaded with cash…

 

I am saying that you must look at statistics, and feel safe.

 

We do enter a time indeed where dirty bombs, bio- and nerve agents are used... we're have been living in such a period for the last couple of decades, and we did see a few horrible acts. People seem to forget that humanity has suffered from much worse things and has practically ignored it. Tsunami’s, earthquakes, wars… generally most effects are gone in a decade.

 

I say: accept to lose an entire city every now and then. Realize that there exist hundreds of large cities, and that therefore even if a large city is hit with devastating effects, then still the effect is negligible and insignificant.

 

CaptianPanic - you give the casualty numbers, but recall the effects on people's psyche and the impact on the economy from 9/11 and terrorism has a pretty large effect. We do face new real threats that are outside any scale seen before thanks to biological and nuclear technology becoming more prolific and widespread.

 

New Orleans never suffered much damage from hurricanes in the past, but it only took one to prove that a bit more money spent on levies could have been really handy. The problem with fighting terrorism is not unlike planning for natural disasters - you may throw a lot of money at them and never have a real problem arise, but if you do, there's no do-overs.

 

I will say that it's easy to go overboard and also throw money at the wrong places that give the appearance of safety while doing little of actual good. That, and I think being so fearful that you compromise on your values (civil rights, privacy, funding torture, etc) is a big mistake. Terrorism may be a overhyped threat, but it is far from insignificant and can result in costs much higher than any previous indicators.

 

Katrina was also insignificant enough. What kind of budget has been allocated to prevent it from happening again? Compare that to the budget allocated to the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq, although I believe that's for oil). For crying out loud, natural disasters are part of life, and people accept it. It's just not rational to live in Los Angeles or San Francisco and be afraid of terrorism while you're sitting on an active fault line.

Edited March 3, 2009 by CaptainPanic
responding to padren

[swansont]

People read in the newspaper, and extrapolate.

 

And that's part of the problem. The newspaper generally does not report mundane things, or at least do so with the same enthusiasm as when it reports the unusual.

[padren]

Katrina was also insignificant enough. What kind of budget has been allocated to prevent it from happening again? Compare that to the budget allocated to the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq, although I believe that's for oil). For crying out loud, natural disasters are part of life, and people accept it. It's just not rational to live in Los Angeles or San Francisco and be afraid of terrorism while you're sitting on an active fault line.

 

If you are suggesting people should expect some risk from living in risky situations and not expect the government to protect them from everything then I agree 100%.

However, I think it's worth spending some time and money on reducing those risks and preparing in a manner that reduce loss of life when and if they occur.

 

Your comparisons about WW2 are not valid in today's world - one city such as New York, or LA, or even Denver being destroyed could have huge repercussions in the highly interconnected world we live in today.

 

I am not saying we should mount massive war efforts on every nation that could potentially shield terrorists or open every crate and strip search every single person entering or leaving the country - creating a 100% foolproof shield against terrorism is impossible, but we can help reduce the risks. Personally I think the war in Iraq has increased the strength of terrorists groups and that we haven't handled terrorism well but I don't think simply ignoring it is the solution either.

 

In 10 years from now, it will be far easier for terrorists (not the illiterates in Taliban controlled areas, but those who choose those areas to operate) to get nuclear weapons. At that point, your arguments as to them being a relatively benign threat will be completely invalid - so do we wait until then ignoring them, or start addressing the emerging face of the world today?

 

I honestly think I agree with many of your points, but that you take them to an extreme that is too black and white: I think you are correct to believe our funding is disproportionate compared to other threats (global warming, pandemic threat etc) but if you take it to an absolute level of completely ignoring terrorism then I have to disagree.

 

 

Lastly, please consider this logic:

 

If someone bombed a corporate head office to hurt it's stock and make money off the markets, we'd want to hunt them down for the crime right? We wouldn't want to ignore them and let them repeat the process, right? So why would we ignore the crime simply because the motivation is different?

[Sayonara]

Yes, and this further compounds the "anyone is a potential terrorist" problem.

 

It's becoming increasingly easier to become a terrorist. Terrorists have access to military grade encryption. In fact terrorists can make virtually untappable Internet phone calls using Skype. Want to build a bomb? Want to build a dirty bomb? Google can tell you how!

Scary isn't it?

 

But, if you have the funding and the commitment, there are ways and means of detecting people who may be involved in terrorist activities. Next to that there is not one extremist group on the planet which is not being closely monitored. Skype is a blind spot, but you can't assemble devices over Skype or move people or parts through VoIP so the networks are still vulnerable to being observed.

 

That is pretty much what I was thinking would be the main response here. People are assuming that:

1. Taliban or other groups are actually are capable of developing the same weapons that the world’s main powers developed… or at least able to obtain them somewhere.

2. That they’re able to travel across the world with it.

3. That the current security checks and bombings in Afghanistan are able to stop them.

 

In fact, people are not only assuming this, but from the replies here, I get the idea that they get a bit pissed off if you don’t agree with these points (does that mean it’s like a religion, and not science?)…

No, we are not getting pissed off because you don't believe in our "religion". Way to risk getting your post reported.

 

People assume you are going to agree with points 1-3 because they are so accepted as fact by all the agencies responsible for monitoring points 1-3, regardless of what country that agency operates from. We don't "assume" that particular terrorist groups can source depleted uranium (for example), we know it, and we expect it, so we plan for it.

 

Personally I doubt points 1 and 3.

Personal belief isn't a good argument. Also I have to say that is a bit rich seeing as you just accused everyone else of being "religious".

 

Taliban are mostly interested in suppressing the local population into the Sharia (fundamentalist islam law). The majority is illiterate (!). The type of weapons that kill millions are actually pretty hard to make, and require a lot of resources and organization.

See, what you have done here is you started off talking above about "[the] Taliban or other groups", and now you have moved the goalposts so that we are only talking about the Taliban to the exclusion of anyone else who might be willing and capable.

 

Ignoring the fact of course that the Taliban could quite easily employ whoever they needed.

 

Anyone can travel anywhere with enough money. And anyway, the biggest threat does not necessarily come from a Muslim from the Middle East.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that practically anything can be smuggled to anywhere, despite all security.

There is overwhelming evidence that practically anything can be caught getting smuggled to anywhere when you invest more money in having more frequent and better-trained border patrols.

 

I don't think that is true anyway. For example it is quite difficult to smuggle African Elephants into Vatican City.

 

 

In fact, nature can make diseases that are capable of wiping out continents. However, the budget of the research being done in this field is totally negligible compared to the war(s?) on terrorism.

When you say "War on Terrorism" you invoke a special case, meaning the joint military effort between the US, UK, Australia, and so on. This means you are actually discussing the invoice for a war, which does not represent the normal budgetary expenditure of those nations. I find this odd because in your OP you struck off the casualties of terrorism who were in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the basis of there being wars there. Makes me wonder if you even count Iraqis or Afghanistan civilians.

 

Bush and Cheney deliberately muddied the waters on this issue because it is easier to get people to pay extra tax to not get murdered by evil-doers than it is to get them to pay extra tax to send their soldiers off to get killed for really tenuous reasons. On SFN as you can imagine it pays dividends to be able to spot the difference.

 

Anyhow, bitter ranting aside, I think you completely miss a trick here. Research needs always overlap. The research efforts being made on (for example) batch-produced one shot inoculations against ebola, are the very things that you say don't get enough funding. But counter-terrorism is responsible for paying for much of this research.

 

 

What of global warming? We might say that both terrorism and global warming pose quite a serious threat. Both are caused by mankind. Both will have uncertain consequences. But I'm sure that the war on terror receives more money. (And I actually think that global warming can be far more devastating on the long term).

"I can find other things which are expensive" is not a compelling point.

 

I don't think that the war on terror does receive as much money. As before, you are suffering from bad accounting. The war on global warming (if you like) has cost the entire planet far far more, and it will continue to do so as major developing nations try to clean up their acts.

 

Again, you are conflating your original topic of "terrorism" with the War on Terror. These are not really the same thing and if you apply your approach to them both you get two slightly different results. Which are you arguing against? Have you given up arguing for us to ignore all terrorism, which was the thrust of your original post?

 

Well… that’s my point: With the current 6,700,000,000 people on earth, and an idealized life expectancy of 80 yrs, an average of 84 million people die every year from any cause (I guess mostly disease, hunger, war and old age).

Yes, and globally we spend a trillionaire's fortune trying to prolong the lives and avoid the killing of most of them.

 

The economic crash that you mention will come from an emotional outburst where people just stop thinking rational.

Will it, Professor?

 

World War II devastated a number of continents, and that took about a decade to rebuild. One city is a bad thing, no doubt… but still no big deal for humanity or the world’s economy… unless everybody just panics. If the world population as a whole stops going to work... then yes.

WWII caused a global depression because of infrastructure damage and the damage to the working population. Now, it would not take such a war to cause the same effect - you could literally do it from a home computer.

 

I say: accept to lose an entire city every now and then. Realize that there exist hundreds of large cities, and that therefore even if a large city is hit with devastating effects, then still the effect is negligible and insignificant.

How insulated from reality are you exactly? Not everybody considers "what humanity will notice on a long-term global level" as being the threshold for acceptability.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I honestly think I agree with many of your points, but that you take them to an extreme that is too black and white: I think you are correct to believe our funding is disproportionate compared to other threats (global warming, pandemic threat etc) but if you take it to an absolute level of completely ignoring terrorism then I have to disagree.

It's hard to know exactly what CP is arguing for since he conflates different viewpoints and seems to have very vague terms of reference. If he is purely talking from an American standpoint then the disproportionate cost of fighting terrorism should lead him to the conclusion "spending by our government needs to be examined closely", not the wacky place he has landed with: "counter-terrorism is expensive so everyone should just ignore terrorist acts instead" (which somehow turned into "we can afford to lose a city or two without really noticing the effects.")

 

I really think CP is a bit divorced from reality here. I don't know how many times I have heard people telling kids to ignore bullies until they lose interest. Bollocks. Ignoring the bully doesn't rob them of the power to cause damage or inflict pain. If a child ignores a bully, the bully becomes more inventively cruel. What stops them in their tracks is an unexpectedly broken nose.

[CaptainPanic]

How insulated from reality are you exactly? Not everybody considers "what humanity will notice on a long-term global level" as being the threshold for acceptability.

The last remark in Sayonara's post (before the merged post) above is quite the opposite of the point I keep trying to make. There are people who are quite in the middle of reality... and see real dangers in this world which are not receiving the attention they should while too much money is being spent on the prevention of a problem which is not there which is overestimated.

 

While it is true that individual people would like to see every risk removed so that they are guaranteed that they'll eventually die of old age, and nothing else, governments cannot think in such terms. Governments must use resources to tackle the biggest issues which will have the biggest effect.

 

The Dutch have stopped investing heavily in sea-defense, because (in most parts) the chance of a flood has been reduced to less than once per 10000 yrs.

 

At some point, you have to stop with prevention, and use your resources for a better purpose. We could build a sea wall of twice the height... but it's not necessary.

 

Finally, I realize that I wrote that we should neglect terrorism altogether. That might have confused people. What I meant is that we should consider it the threat that it really is.

 

And in my calculating way of thinking, that does mean a simple risk assessment.

Risk = chance * effect

Compare that to a number of other risks, and determine the biggest risk.

Then you look at the price of prevention, and make a cost benefit analysis.

And if I do that, I find that we're spending way too much on terror-prevention.

Edited March 3, 2009 by CaptainPanic
fixing the mess I made of quotes

[Sayonara]

Finally, I realize that I wrote that we should neglect terrorism altogether. That might have confused people. What I meant is that we should consider it the threat that it really is.

 

And in my calculating way of thinking, that does mean a simple risk assessment.

Risk = chance * effect

Compare that to a number of other risks, and determine the biggest risk.

Then you look at the price of prevention, and make a cost benefit analysis.

And if I do that, I find that we're spending way too much on terror-prevention.

But with terrorism this does not work. Terrorism -- as opposed to say floods -- is driven by intent.

 

If you scale back your defences because their effect has been to reduce terrorism to a level which you see as negligible, what you are doing is changing a hard target into a soft target. What do you think happens next?

[padren]

And in my calculating way of thinking, that does mean a simple risk assessment.

Risk = chance * effect

Compare that to a number of other risks, and determine the biggest risk.

Then you look at the price of prevention, and make a cost benefit analysis.

And if I do that, I find that we're spending way too much on terror-prevention.

 

I want to make a comment on that, because it's pretty open ended: If you consider the Iraq war a war solely on Terror, and view it as "not helping" then yes, we are spending way too much on terror prevention. But the comment is vague - can you express what measures you feel are appropriate, from which we can at least deduce what your proposed reduced spending would look like?

 

It would help to have this in perspective to nail down the specific scope of your view.

 

Second: As Sayonara³ already made clear - "Risk = chance * effect" is not a very solid model for calculating risk of terrorism. It fails to address how our actions modify chance and effect, plus the degree of accuracy to which we can calculate these.

It also is very different for a wide range of terrorist threats: Everything from the Cole bombing to kidnapped tourists to nuked cities call in that equation, each with different chance/risk values.

 

Lastly is the issue of crime as I mentioned before: I'll add a scenario... a man is wanted for murder, and on the run. How much money should the government spend tracking him down? If he keeps popping up on the radar in cities but stays one step ahead of law enforcement with expensive raid after expensive raid on where he just was... when do you call the victim's family and say "You know, it's just not cost effective to follow even promising leads anymore, he's too good and by our calculations has no higher than a 50/50 chance of murdering more people in the future, so we'll just ignore him."

[CaptainPanic]

But with terrorism this does not work. Terrorism -- as opposed to say floods -- is driven by intent.

 

If you scale back your defences because their effect has been to reduce terrorism to a level which you see as negligible, what you are doing is changing a hard target into a soft target. What do you think happens next?

 

If you scale back your maintenance on sea defense, the chance on a disaster also increases, so I fail to see the difference.

 

I want to make a comment on that, because it's pretty open ended: If you consider the Iraq war a war solely on Terror, and view it as "not helping" then yes, we are spending way too much on terror prevention. But the comment is vague - can you express what measures you feel are appropriate, from which we can at least deduce what your proposed reduced spending would look like?

 

It would help to have this in perspective to nail down the specific scope of your view.

I view the war in Afghanistan as 100% war on terror, while the war in Iraq has an economic motivation, but has partially been sold to us to also help fight terror (not just in the USA, but definitely also in Europe, including my own little country (Netherlands)).

I do see that expenses on anti-terror measures still increase, so I guess that it's not really helping so much. Our army, and I guess also the US army (I don't know), claim success though... and recently, there is less bad news from Afghanistan (and Iraq).

 

Other anti-terror measures are:

-More police (national prevention), and increased patrols or even permanent guarding of any possible target (and there are lots of those)

-Security at airports, including the you-cannot-bring-liquids-but-lighters-are-OK

-Security cameras in urban areas

-Increased military expenses to replace equipment

-Data logging, data analysis (financially cheap, expensive in loss of privacy - I know that this is hard to measure, subjective, and does not make the discussion easier)

-New passports and laws requiring anyone to carry ID (so you lose it more often)

-Doubling the size of the secret service (roughly doubled in the Netherlands, not sure how much the CIA's and secret polices increased lately in other countries)

-demanding that companies increase their security at their own expenses

-Physical barriers at the borders of Europe and the USA

-Patrols at the borders

 

Probably missed a few, and I admit that not all in this list are of equal importance... but that's the type of things I mean.

 

Second: As Sayonara³ already made clear - "Risk = chance * effect" is not a very solid model for calculating risk of terrorism. It fails to address how our actions modify chance and effect, plus the degree of accuracy to which we can calculate these.

 

I wrote:

And in my calculating way of thinking, that does mean a simple risk assessment.

Risk = chance * effect

Compare that to a number of other risks, and determine the biggest risk.

Then you look at the price of prevention, and make a cost benefit analysis. <-- this is where the increased risk from lowering defense is included.

And if I do that, I find that we're spending way too much on terror-prevention.

So, you do try to assess the effects of the measures you take, and you take those measures which have the greatest effect.

Reduced measures means increased chance and possibly increased effect. But it would also free some resources to be used elsewhere.

 

For example: if the allied forces leave Afghanistan, the terror threat will not be zero, but it will hopefully be reduced.

Then at some point our governments will decide that it's no longer good value for the money, and they retreat.

This will of course give the few terrorists that are left in Afghanistan more freedom, but the armies that are there now will be free to do good work elsewhere, and possibly even at home, to make people safe somewhere else. (Aren't the army engineers involved in the construction of sea defense in New Orleans?)

 

It also is very different for a wide range of terrorist threats: Everything from the Cole bombing to kidnapped tourists to nuked cities call in that equation, each with different chance/risk values.

 

Lastly is the issue of crime as I mentioned before: I'll add a scenario... a man is wanted for murder, and on the run. How much money should the government spend tracking him down? If he keeps popping up on the radar in cities but stays one step ahead of law enforcement with expensive raid after expensive raid on where he just was... when do you call the victim's family and say "You know, it's just not cost effective to follow even promising leads anymore, he's too good and by our calculations has no higher than a 50/50 chance of murdering more people in the future, so we'll just ignore him."

 

Your last remark is in fact exactly why small robberies do go unsolved, or why police sometimes give up on a case. Now you may say that a small robbery is not such a big deal... I totally agree that quite a lot of effort has to be put into the arrest of a murderer. Police sometimes use teams of up to 50 people for weeks in a row to track down somebody. But at some point, enough is enough. You cannot use the entire army to track down a common serial killer. It would have to be the world's most wanted person (like Milosevic or Saddam).

 

Risk in chemical industy

In chemical industry, the risk assessment really does put a value on a human's life. Operators (humans), loss of equipment (factory), loss of production (revenue), pollution, are all part of the risk assessment. It's really hard to discuss this in class at university, and we had heated debates... but a chemical process just is not 100% safe, and somebody has to work there... when do you stop to make the process safer?