Terrorism

[arahant]

Ok, I'm not sure if this is SMP or what, but I was reminded of something based on another thread...

It seems to me that terrorism is essentially NO threat to the US. All we hear about from both sides is how we have to protect ourselves from it, huge amounts of money are being spent, etc...and it's not just republicans, but democrats also...though that may be a political calculation.

From an economic perspective, this seems like another gross misassesment of risk. I mean, 40k people die on the roads every year, and the billions being spent on all aspects of security (wars, extra airport security, etc) would be enough to eliminate half of these deaths. Why is terrorism treated as such a 'special' threat. Is that just the nature of terrorism? Doesn't that mean that terrorism ALWAYS accomplishes it's goals?

[doucy]

I recall hearing/reading that the airline industry lost somewhere in the ballpark of $40 billion as a result of 9/11. So we certainly have an incentive to try to stop terrorism from happening in the US.

[Kaj]

Not to sound too simplistic, but there's a difference between dying in accidents and being murdered. Cars didn't declare a Jihad on Americans.

[tomdemaine]

What is your definition of terrorism?

[tsearcher]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound too simplistic, but there's a difference between dying in accidents and being murdered. Cars didn't declare a Jihad on Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the difference? Either way you're dead.

[m_the0ry]

It's not that terrorism is no threat, it's that there is no practical way to combat it. A "war on terrorism" is defective by design. This is because terrorism targets civilians and its medium is fear. There are too many civilians to protect them all and fear -for the most part- propagates without resistance. the price of weapons grade uranium is decaying exponentially and at some point 1% of the global population can afford to purchase a warhead that can kill tens of thousands of people.

And when millions of people all have the power to kill tens of thousands of people each, what happens?

Bad things.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I recall hearing/reading that the airline industry lost somewhere in the ballpark of $40 billion as a result of 9/11. So we certainly have an incentive to try to stop terrorism from happening in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]
sure is an incentive to stop people being morons. How much effort is the West putting into that?

chez

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
I recall hearing/reading that the airline industry lost somewhere in the ballpark of $40 billion as a result of 9/11. So we certainly have an incentive to try to stop terrorism from happening in the US.

[/ QUOTE ] You think the government should spend money to try and make people fly more? You must not be an Al Gore fan.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that terrorism is essentially NO threat to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://blogmeisterusa.mu.nu/archives/Twin_Towers_Under_Attack_9-11-751564.jpg



9/11 Death Total: 2,973 (not counting terrorist scum)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that terrorism is essentially NO threat to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://blogmeisterusa.mu.nu/archives/Twin_Towers_Under_Attack_9-11-751564.jpg



9/11 Death Total: 2,973 (not counting terrorist scum)

[/ QUOTE ]
I think by threat to the US we mean put at risk the on-going existence of the US as a free and viable country. Terrorism is a negligible threat to this. Even a cack-handed response still keeps it negligible.

This could change if/when terrorist have the means to use weapons of mass destruction.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
This could change if/when terrorist have the means to use weapons of mass destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]


And hence the need to kill the terrorists before they acquire the means, as they clearly have the intent and desire to do so. Plus prevention of conventional attacks on our homeland (and yours) also requires that we confront them.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This could change if/when terrorist have the means to use weapons of mass destruction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




And hence the need to kill the terrorists before they acquire the means, as they clearly have the intent and desire to do so

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally I'm against their cause so I try not to help them.

chez

[mjkidd]

arhant -- why do you hate freedom?

[TomCowley]

I did the math awhile back (after standing in a few airport security lines) and if terrorists blew up one commercial flight each month, you'd still be able to fly to the SUN and back multiple times before your most likely altitude was -6ft.

Terrorism is 99.9+% psychological and is exceptionally likely to be played without WMD. If the expected response to a terrorist using WMD is for the US to WMD their home country into oblivion, it's a bad strategy. When the expected response is (at worst) a half-assed US military operation or economic pressure (that has no chance for long-term success and serves as a great recruiting tool), it's a great strategy.

Until the terrorists fear a devastating response, we have no short-to-medium term solution to the problem, and any resources spent "combating" the threat are a complete waste. The US doesn't have the stomach for a devastating response, and the terrorists aren't dumb enough to provoke one, so we're stuck in a holding pattern.

Our response to terrorism is tens (and maybe hundreds) of times more damaging than 9/11, but as longs as morons act (and vote) out of fear and other irrational psychological impulses, and as long as politicians are willing to exploit it, we're screwed. And I don't have much faith in the intelligence of the average american or the lack of opportunism of the average politician.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

Caught a talk by a retired JPL scientist recently. One of his specialties was asteroids and assessing the Earth-impact risks of same. This lead him to looking at various other risks and how they compared. What he found lead him to the same conclusions you've made (and have been known to the insurance industry for quite some time): the risk from unlikely events is generally greatly exaggerated.


RISKS OF DEATH (lifetime odds, US residents, unless otherwise noted)

Asteroid impact risks are for currently remaining undiscovered asteroids.

Cause of Death One in:

Accidents (all kinds)..........................36
Motor vehicle accident.......................90
Suicide........................................120
Homicide......................................185
Falls...........................................25 0
Assault by firearm...........................325
Terrorism (Middle East)....................1,000
Fire or Smoke...............................1,100
Firearms accident...........................2,500
Natural forces (storms etc.)............3,400
Electrocution...............................5,000
Drowning....................................9,000
Flood........................................27,00 0
Airplane crash.............................30,000
Lightning strike...........................43,000
Tornado....................................46,000
Legal execution............................60,000
Terrorism (incl. 9/11).....................80,000
Venomous bite or sting..................100,000
Tsunami (worldwide)......................100,000
Hurricane...................................110,00 0
Earthquakes...............................130,000
Fireworks accident........................600,000
Asteroid impact (all sizes)...............750,000
Terrorism (excl. 9/11)..................1,100,000
Amusement park rides....................1,100,000
Asteroid impact (global)................1,500,000
Driving to a local event (once).........1,500,000
Food poisoning by botulism..............3,000,000
Regional impact (tsunami)...............3,200,000
Local Impact (Tunguska).................4,000,000
Impact mass extinction (comets).........8,000,000
Shark attack................................8,000,000
Drinking tap water.........................10,000,000

[vhawk01]

I'm sort of surprised my risk of homocide isn't higher. I mean, of course mine IS higher, since I'm young and live in a fairly dangerous city, but I'm surprised the overall risk isn't a little higher than that.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sort of surprised my risk of homocide isn't higher. I mean, of course mine IS higher, since I'm young and live in a fairly dangerous city, but I'm surprised the overall risk isn't a little higher than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? A .5% chance that my death will be caused by homicide seems insanely high to me.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that terrorism is essentially NO threat to the US.

[/ QUOTE ]


http://blogmeisterusa.mu.nu/archives/Twin_Towers_Under_Attack_9-11-751564.jpg



9/11 Death Total: 2,973 (not counting terrorist scum)

[/ QUOTE ]


How about this? (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_16.html)

15,495 murders just in 2005. That's right, stop the terrorists, smoke 'em out of their holes... Well, at least that'll make you feel safer. Or not?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
And when millions of people all have the power to kill tens of thousands of people each, what happens?

Bad things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, good things. When people realize that fighting is only going to get them all killed, they're much more likely to set their differences aside. Have you been keeping up with history for the past half a century or what?

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sort of surprised my risk of homocide isn't higher. I mean, of course mine IS higher, since I'm young and live in a fairly dangerous city, but I'm surprised the overall risk isn't a little higher than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I blame this on the "CNN" effect. Nowadays, a murder takes place in the Okefenokee, Florida swamp and you hear about it instantly in Vancouver, Washington. This generates a lot of unwarranted fear (and sells a lot of airtime along the way).

Personally I think it's pretty interesting that you're about as likely to die in a ladder accident or other fall as you are at the hands of another human.

Also, I think most people would be surprised to learn that they're more likely to kill themselves than to be intentionally killed by one of their fellow super-monkeys.

[ctj]

[ QUOTE ]
Caught a talk by a retired JPL scientist recently. One of his specialties was asteroids and assessing the Earth-impact risks of same. This lead him to looking at various other risks and how they compared. What he found lead him to the same conclusions you've made (and have been known to the insurance industry for quite some time): the risk from unlikely events is generally greatly exaggerated.


RISKS OF DEATH (lifetime odds, US residents, unless otherwise noted)

Asteroid impact risks are for currently remaining undiscovered asteroids.

Cause of Death One in:

Accidents (all kinds)..........................36
Motor vehicle accident.......................90
Suicide........................................120
Homicide......................................185
Falls...........................................25 0
Assault by firearm...........................325
Terrorism (Middle East)....................1,000
Fire or Smoke...............................1,100
Firearms accident...........................2,500
Natural forces (storms etc.)............3,400
Electrocution...............................5,000
Drowning....................................9,000
Flood........................................27,00 0
Airplane crash.............................30,000
Lightning strike...........................43,000
Tornado....................................46,000
Legal execution............................60,000
Terrorism (incl. 9/11).....................80,000
Venomous bite or sting..................100,000
Tsunami (worldwide)......................100,000
Hurricane...................................110,00 0
Earthquakes...............................130,000
Fireworks accident........................600,000
Asteroid impact (all sizes)...............750,000
Terrorism (excl. 9/11)..................1,100,000
Amusement park rides....................1,100,000
Asteroid impact (global)................1,500,000
Driving to a local event (once).........1,500,000
Food poisoning by botulism..............3,000,000
Regional impact (tsunami)...............3,200,000
Local Impact (Tunguska).................4,000,000
Impact mass extinction (comets).........8,000,000
Shark attack................................8,000,000
Drinking tap water.........................10,000,000

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be only the risk of 'accidental' death - it doesn't include the odds of death by disease (heart attack, stroke, cancer, HIV, etc.

Also, it's not clear why the 'terrorist' odds should exclude 9/11 (does he think it can't happen again?); I'd guess that more people have been killed by terrorists than by amusement part rides in recent years.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
arhant -- why do you hate freedom?

[/ QUOTE ]
The genius of this is that it's funny whether or not you were serious.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think most people would be surprised to learn that they're more likely to kill themselves than to be intentionally killed by one of their fellow super-monkeys.

[/ QUOTE ] That's because most people aren't.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
And hence the need to kill the terrorists before they acquire the means, as they clearly have the intent and desire to do so. Plus prevention of conventional attacks on our homeland (and yours) also requires that we confront them.

[/ QUOTE ] I assume you are fine with them using the same reasoning to recruit people to try to kill you?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And hence the need to kill the terrorists before they acquire the means, as they clearly have the intent and desire to do so. Plus prevention of conventional attacks on our homeland (and yours) also requires that we confront them.

[/ QUOTE ] I assume you are fine with them using the same reasoning to recruit people to try to kill you?

[/ QUOTE ]

He'll say yes, and say we'll just see who executes our plan better, but then he will turn around and try to claim absolute morality and the moral high ground. Its all very confusing. Its wrong when they do it, and just when we do it, that I'm sure of, its just the details I'm trying to work out.

Is it because they actually ARE trying to kill us all and we aren't, but in their minds we are?

[Insp. Clue!So?]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think most people would be surprised to learn that they're more likely to kill themselves than to be intentionally killed by one of their fellow super-monkeys.

[/ QUOTE ] That's because most people aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

?

2002 homicide rate (US, DOJ statistics): 6.1/100,000

From Encarta:

"In the United States, suicide ranks in the top ten causes of death, accounting for about 1.5 percent of all deaths. The annual number of suicides has averaged about 30,000 since the late 1980s and has consistently exceeded the annual number of homicides. The suicide rate (number of suicide deaths per 100,000 people) in the United States has remained relatively stable since the 1950s, ranging between 10 and 13 per 100,000 each year."

[wtfsvi]

I don't dispute that. But the statement "most people are more likely to kill themselves than to be intentionally killed by another person" does not follow from those statistics.