The real effect of terrorism

[Jdanz]

How important does everyone think terrorism is?

I am in the camp that some amount of terrorism is unpreventable and an enormous tragedy, but that it is not worth the costs to try to prevent it to the extent that we do given limited resources that could prevent more harm/do more good allocated differently.

[[Phill]]

It is the job of the government to prevent tragidy - be it health and safety laws or actions and laws related to anti terror.

I guess what your saying is that governments should invest more strongly (both financially and politically) in solving such things as Palestine in an attempt to deal with the cause instead of the effect - but the reality is they should do both and they should do everything in their power.

Id agree that you cant prevent all terror - i live in the UK and we have had the IRA and now we have homegrown British Muslims planning and committing acts on our shores. Note, we have not gone to the same extent you guys have with the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act and homeland security - but we ahve remodelled many of our police and spy organisations to more efficiently deal with the thread posed.

I guess what it all comes down to is that you have to trust the people in charge are doing their jobs - and that when they dont the safeguards in place are doing their jobs. Sometimes its all about faith, but when you look at secret torture flights and gitmo, you have to question what price security is coming at.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
How important does everyone think terrorism is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some interesting odds on what is, and is not, a threat to your peaceful way of life: Odds of:

death by assault in your lifetime: 182/1
death by falling : 250/1
death by firearm: 325/1
death by poison: 1,200/1
death in a car crash: 5,000/1
death by choking on food or something else: 5,000/1
death by drowning: 9000/1
death by accidental hanging: 12,000/1
death by murder: 20,000/1
death by an animal drawn vehicle: 31,000/1
death by dog attack: 700,000/1
death in the bathtub: 1,000,000/1
death by a tornado: 2,000,000/1
death by falling out of bed: 2,000,000/1
Odds of being killed in a terrorist WMD attack: 6,000,000/1

The message? Strap yourself in bed! Chew your food carefully! Keep an eye on fido. Your family dog is 8.5 times more dangerous to you than Osama Bin Ladin. Watch out for those horse drawn carts! They are 193 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist WMD attack. Stay out of the water! You are 666 times more likely to die by drowning than by terrorist attack. And, by all means, watch your step! You are 24,000 times more likely to die in a simple trip and fall accident than in an airliner crashing into the Sears tower next year. link

[bobman0330]

So, those odds of dying in a terrorist WMD attack are just made up out of whole cloth, right?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How important does everyone think terrorism is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some interesting odds on what is, and is not, a threat to your peaceful way of life: Odds of:

death by assault in your lifetime: 182/1
death by falling : 250/1
death by firearm: 325/1
death by poison: 1,200/1
death in a car crash: 5,000/1
death by choking on food or something else: 5,000/1
death by drowning: 9000/1
death by accidental hanging: 12,000/1
death by murder: 20,000/1
death by an animal drawn vehicle: 31,000/1
death by dog attack: 700,000/1
death in the bathtub: 1,000,000/1
death by a tornado: 2,000,000/1
death by falling out of bed: 2,000,000/1
Odds of being killed in a terrorist WMD attack: 6,000,000/1

The message? Strap yourself in bed! Chew your food carefully! Keep an eye on fido. Your family dog is 8.5 times more dangerous to you than Osama Bin Ladin. Watch out for those horse drawn carts! They are 193 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist WMD attack. Stay out of the water! You are 666 times more likely to die by drowning than by terrorist attack. And, by all means, watch your step! You are 24,000 times more likely to die in a simple trip and fall accident than in an airliner crashing into the Sears tower next year. link

[/ QUOTE ]

20 years ago the risk of dying in a terrorist attack may have been 20,000,000:1. Without effective deterrence it may drop to 200,000:1, or 20000:1 or 200:1. Statistics like this are total BS.

The real issue is that when you can avoid exposure to real and deadly risk then avoiding exposure is a no brainer. When the "cost" of deterrence is measures that carry illusory "loss of freedom" but in actuality are non-invasive to the vast majority (eg wireless wiretaps, PATRIOT act etc), then not taking those measures is insanity.

[Jdanz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How important does everyone think terrorism is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some interesting odds on what is, and is not, a threat to your peaceful way of life: Odds of:

death by assault in your lifetime: 182/1
death by falling : 250/1
death by firearm: 325/1
death by poison: 1,200/1
death in a car crash: 5,000/1
death by choking on food or something else: 5,000/1
death by drowning: 9000/1
death by accidental hanging: 12,000/1
death by murder: 20,000/1
death by an animal drawn vehicle: 31,000/1
death by dog attack: 700,000/1
death in the bathtub: 1,000,000/1
death by a tornado: 2,000,000/1
death by falling out of bed: 2,000,000/1
Odds of being killed in a terrorist WMD attack: 6,000,000/1

The message? Strap yourself in bed! Chew your food carefully! Keep an eye on fido. Your family dog is 8.5 times more dangerous to you than Osama Bin Ladin. Watch out for those horse drawn carts! They are 193 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist WMD attack. Stay out of the water! You are 666 times more likely to die by drowning than by terrorist attack. And, by all means, watch your step! You are 24,000 times more likely to die in a simple trip and fall accident than in an airliner crashing into the Sears tower next year. link

[/ QUOTE ]

20 years ago the risk of dying in a terrorist attack may have been 20,000,000:1. Without effective deterrence it may drop to 200,000:1, or 20000:1 or 200:1. Statistics like this are total BS.

The real issue is that when you can avoid exposure to real and deadly risk then avoiding exposure is a no brainer. When the "cost" of deterrence is measures that carry illusory "loss of freedom" but in actuality are non-invasive to the vast majority (eg wireless wiretaps, PATRIOT act etc), then not taking those measures is insanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think most people disagree with your conclusion (though some obviously do) but I think many think the potential number you state laughable. Further many believe that current actions (in Iraq for example) serve to make the odds of terrorist attacks increase rather than decrease, I'm agnostic on that one but I don't think anyone can honestly deny that it is a real possibility. The cost of the Iraq War in treasure is enormous, in American lives is arguably more significant than terrorism, and this is without getting into the value of Iraqi life, which some people hold in fairly low regard and some in fairly high and some consider a sort of beneficial externality.

I think your arguments are fairly strong regarding the PATRIOT act and/or wiretapping, though I'm also fairly certain that this is antithetical to the founding traditions of the United States and the theory of limited government. I doubt in real terms people would see any difference in their lives.

Really what I take offense to is the idea that those who believe the government is overestimating the import of terrorism necessarily "have their head in the sand". I think it is entirely reasonable to admit that huge amounts of the muslim world wish to enforce sharia on the world, and would do so by the sword if able, and find both that they are likely to be extremely ineffective in doing so, and/or that our current tactics will not likely be helpful in resolving this issue.

I think an element of the pro-war argument that bothers me is the idea that certain things are in-allowable, such as Iran getting nukes or a complete civil war in Iraq, without a thorough cost benefit analysis attached. There are some things that really suck, such as the attitude described above of many muslims to the West, but phraseology like "unacceptable" generally overstates our ability and understates the cost of allowing or disallowing the actions and/or beliefs of others.

"The real issue is that when you can avoid exposure to real and deadly risk then avoiding exposure is a no brainer"

This is reflective of what I'm saying, though you do qualify above. Whether we can avoid this risk and whether the preventative actions taken will be effective is questionable, but that it really besides the point here. The point is we shouldn't simply try to "avoid exposure to real and deadly risk" we should try to do so when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. In my personal opinion though of very questionable effectiveness wiretaps are fairly low cost and could potentially be of enormous benefit, the Iraq War is of incredible cost and I would argue even more dubious benefit, perhaps even without the "cost" it recruits more terrorists than it kills and perhaps it also has the effect of making potentially moderate muslims into extremists.

Is it reasonable to believe that wiretapping meets the threshold of a cost benefit analysis but the Iraq was doesn't?

Is one necessarily ignorant if one believes the above statement?

[warrantofice]

[ QUOTE ]
So, those odds of dying in a terrorist WMD attack are just made up out of whole cloth, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Odds of dieing from a land mine in New Jersey are different then dieing from a land mine in Cambodia

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How important does everyone think terrorism is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are some interesting odds on what is, and is not, a threat to your peaceful way of life: Odds of:

death by assault in your lifetime: 182/1
death by falling : 250/1
death by firearm: 325/1
death by poison: 1,200/1
death in a car crash: 5,000/1
death by choking on food or something else: 5,000/1
death by drowning: 9000/1
death by accidental hanging: 12,000/1
death by murder: 20,000/1
death by an animal drawn vehicle: 31,000/1
death by dog attack: 700,000/1
death in the bathtub: 1,000,000/1
death by a tornado: 2,000,000/1
death by falling out of bed: 2,000,000/1
Odds of being killed in a terrorist WMD attack: 6,000,000/1

The message? Strap yourself in bed! Chew your food carefully! Keep an eye on fido. Your family dog is 8.5 times more dangerous to you than Osama Bin Ladin. Watch out for those horse drawn carts! They are 193 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist WMD attack. Stay out of the water! You are 666 times more likely to die by drowning than by terrorist attack. And, by all means, watch your step! You are 24,000 times more likely to die in a simple trip and fall accident than in an airliner crashing into the Sears tower next year. link

[/ QUOTE ]

20 years ago the risk of dying in a terrorist attack may have been 20,000,000:1. Without effective deterrence it may drop to 200,000:1, or 20000:1 or 200:1. Statistics like this are total BS.

The real issue is that when you can avoid exposure to real and deadly risk then avoiding exposure is a no brainer. When the "cost" of deterrence is measures that carry illusory "loss of freedom" but in actuality are non-invasive to the vast majority (eg wireless wiretaps, PATRIOT act etc), then not taking those measures is insanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think most people disagree with your conclusion (though some obviously do) but I think many think the potential number you state laughable. <font color="red"> The point of my numbers was to point out the silliness of using statistics of long term, well known and relatively stable occurrences (quantitatiely) and something that is completely unknown and evolving</font> Further many believe that current actions (in Iraq for example) serve to make the odds of terrorist attacks increase rather than decrease, I'm agnostic on that one but I don't think anyone can honestly deny that it is a real possibility. <font color="red">Agreed, but many discount the possibility that our actions in the long term will decrease those odds. </font> The cost of the Iraq War in treasure is enormous, in American lives is arguably more significant than terrorism, <font color="red"> anything that is totally subjective is "arguable". In the context of history and the potential importance it is also arguable the cost in American lives is miniscule </font> and this is without getting into the value of Iraqi life, which some people hold in fairly low regard and some in fairly high and some consider a sort of beneficial externality.

I think your arguments are fairly strong regarding the PATRIOT act and/or wiretapping, though I'm also fairly certain that this is antithetical to the founding traditions of the United States <font color="red">I disagree with this. The founders recognized both internal and external threats and, while internal threats held sway, it was not out of philosophy or theory, but the practicality of warfare at the time. </font> and the theory of limited government. <font color="red">what limits are appropriate evolves with time and technology </font> I doubt in real terms people would see any difference in their lives. <font color="red"> there has certainly been no demonstrable difference to date, and, as stated elsewhere, I dont believe in "slippery slope" theory </font>

Really what I take offense to is the idea that those who believe the government is overestimating the import of terrorism necessarily "have their head in the sand". <font color="red">not all do, just most..and those are the loudest. I personally believe its importance is fairly represented by the government and way underestimated by the the MSM, which has more influence than the government on public opinion </font> I think it is entirely reasonable to admit that huge amounts of the muslim world wish to enforce sharia on the world, and would do so by the sword if able, and find both that they are likely to be extremely ineffective in doing so, and/or that our current tactics will not likely be helpful in resolving this issue. <font color="red">Effectiveness will grow exponentially unless its curbed, and our tactics, moderately successful to date, will improve, hopefully more quickly than terror's effectiveness. </font>

I think an element of the pro-war argument that bothers me is the idea that certain things are in-allowable, such as Iran getting nukes or a complete civil war in Iraq, without a thorough cost benefit analysis attached. <font color="red">I believe those analyses are always attempted. Cheney certainly considered costs/benefits in his reassessment of the value of intervention with Saddams regime over time. </font> There are some things that really suck, such as the attitude described above of many muslims to the West, but phraseology like "unacceptable" generally overstates our ability and understates the cost of allowing or disallowing the actions and/or beliefs of others. <font color="red"> while there are shades of gray in any analysis "unacceptable" is not hyperbolic to the extreme with regard to Iran and nukes. </font>

"The real issue is that when you can avoid exposure to real and deadly risk then avoiding exposure is a no brainer"

This is reflective of what I'm saying, though you do qualify above. Whether we can avoid this risk and whether the preventative actions taken will be effective is questionable, <font color="red"> what is unquestionable is that not taken preventative actions will do nothing to avoid risks </font> but that it really besides the point here. The point is we shouldn't simply try to "avoid exposure to real and deadly risk" we should try to do so when the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. In my personal opinion though of very questionable effectiveness wiretaps are fairly low cost and could potentially be of enormous benefit, the Iraq War is of incredible cost and I would argue even more dubious benefit, perhaps even without the "cost" it recruits more terrorists than it kills and perhaps it also has the effect of making potentially moderate muslims into extremists.

Is it reasonable to believe that wiretapping meets the threshold of a cost benefit analysis but the Iraq war doesn't? <font color="red">reasonable, yes, accurate, imo no, not even close. </font>

Is one necessarily ignorant if one believes the above statement?

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">not in the true meaning of ignorance, not, but I am not talking about those who give thoughtful assesments, but those who reach their conclusions by listening to soundbites from idealogues like Tim Robbins and think Bill Maher and Al Franken are anything more than comedians trying to make a buck. </font>

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Id agree that you cant prevent all terror - i live in the UK and we have had the IRA and now we have homegrown British Muslims planning and committing acts on our shores

[/ QUOTE ]

it's common knowledge, been in teh british papers and stuff, that the IRA was almost totally run by british intelligence.

[Barretboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Id agree that you cant prevent all terror - i live in the UK and we have had the IRA and now we have homegrown British Muslims planning and committing acts on our shores

[/ QUOTE ]

it's common knowledge, been in teh british papers and stuff, that the IRA was almost totally run by british intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're gonna have to back that up with some documentation I'm afraid.