What I wish ANY politician would say about terrorism

[JaredL]

"Relative to a lot of other things, terrorism isn't so bad. We would be better off spending a sizable portion of our national security budget elsewhere"

According to Wikipedia, 2,973 people in addition to the 19 hijackers died on September 11. It was an attack on a scale unimaginable before that. Granted, if we spent our money on other things it would make it a bit more likely that future attacks would happen, but even in that case it's not so bad.

According to the National Safety Council in 2003:
- 48,071 or about 16x the number that died on 9/11, died in some sort of "transport accident"
- 19,960 of these, over 6x the number that died on 9/11, died in car, pick-up truck, or van accidents
- 17,229 people, about 6x the number that died on 9/11, died of some sort of accidental fall
- 3,306 drowned
- 3,369 died from "Exposure to smoke, fire and flames"
- 19,457 died from "Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances," including 9231 of "Narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens]" (rec drug OD I guess) and 7648 of "Other and unspecified drugs, medicaments, and biologicals" which I guess would be ODing on some sort of prescription drug.
- 31,484 people (> 10x the number dying on 9/11) committed suicide
- 5462 poisoned themselves
- 6635 hung, strangled, or suffocated themselves
- 16,907 people killed themselves with a gun
- 17,732 people were murdered
- 11,920 with a gun
- 2049 with a knife
- 2,855 died due to "Complications of medical and surgical care and sequelae"

Obviously it's impossible to say how many people would have died due to terrorist attacks had the budget been changed, but it seems pretty clear to me that money could be better spent elsewhere.

For example, if the government invested money that was dedicated to helping auto companies make cars safer, that would reduce the 40-50 thousand people that die in an autoaccident each year somewhat. Even reducing these by a percent would save 400-500 lives a year. Removing enough money to accomplish this from the national security budget would surely not cost us that many.

Similarly, instead of chasing terrorists around in other countries, perhaps we could do something about the much more important crime problem here. Increasing resources available to those that help prevent suicide would go a lot further than it does to "keep us safe from terrorists."

The above figures are only deaths "by injury." This says nothing about how much further money would go if invested in medical research (though that would probably help with the last stat above).

What are the odds that any politician will make such a statement?

[hmkpoker]

No politician will say this. It's political suicide. The best thing for this country is probably to stop being afraid of terrorism, let the airlines stick a [censored] guard on their planes, let Israel deal with its own problems and get on with life; no major liberal is ever going to have the balls to say that though. "WHAT!?? YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S A TERROR THREAT!!?!?!? 9-11!!!! 9-11!!!!! REMEMBER 9-11?!!?!??!?OMFG!!!!!"

[mark_foley]

I agree with you but I think that you have to condsider the economic impact that another major terroist attack in this country would have. Hopefully a politican will be able to succesfully put terroism in its proper context. It seems very unlikely one would even attempt this in the current political climate.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you but I think that you have to condsider the economic impact that another major terroist attack in this country would have. Hopefully a politican will be able to succesfully put terroism in its proper context. It seems very unlikely one would even attempt this in the current political climate.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Consider the economic impact that five million ten-ton pink elephants plummetting to earth simultaneously would have.

2) Consider the economic impact of preventing terrorist attacks to the degree that we are (high spending, annoying regulations, lost civil liberties)

3) Consider the effect of waging pre-emptive wars on another nation's leader's (correct) perception of this country as a threat to the welfare of the world, and the desire to dismantle it.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
What I wish ANY politician would say about terrorism :
"Relative to a lot of other things, terrorism isn't so bad. We would be better off spending a sizable portion of our national security budget elsewhere"

[/ QUOTE ]You go on to give examples of deaths from causes other than terrorism, deaths which are far more numerous than those caused by 9/11. However, the thinking is wrong IMO for a number of reasons.

Human beings, and often in their majority as well, have preferences which, at first glance, astonish us. Such as a preference as to how they die. Although death is pretty much final, whether you die by a bomb explosion of eating greasys hamburgers, people would rather die, for example, through the latter "method" than the former. (You can see the ranking of preferences implicit in those surveys where people are asked to rank causes of death according to their probability of happening, in their opinion.) So, if people want things arranged so that they're less likely to die from a cause of death that's undesirable, e.g. a bomb on an airplane, then that's precisely the (democratically) right thing to do.

The education of people towards being aware of the real dangers in life, the respective probabilities and the prevalence of biases in our thinking is the way to fight people's prejudices.

Then, there's the numbers themselves. The exact same argument ("Hell, there's far more deaths from ____ in the States than from the war in Baghdad") is used by supporters of the war in Iraq. (Check Utah's old posts here, for one. He was a specialist.) And the argument is blatantly wrong because this war is of our own making and explicitly meant to kill people; it's not an automibile accident.

Mickey Brausch

[madnak]

You're absolutely correct. But people are irrational.

[morphball]

Jaredl - We live in a country with over 300 million people. Many of us drive. Most of us walk. Many of us like to get high, and are quite adventurous when it comes to trying new substances. Several of us (but not as many as the former categories) are mean and/or stupid.

This is a fact of life. It also means that we are going to die because of falls, autowrecks, drugs and fights.

I think its niave to remark that the government can make cars safer. Pray tell, jaredl. What new safety feature do you have in mind? Go back to the 1950's through early 70's and look at those cars. With seatbelts, they are much safer than the cars of today. They had more mass and stronger frames. We don't have that today because of a cost/benefit analysis.

It's funny that you mention drugs and crime. One, people are going to invent [censored] to get high with in their basements if marijuana and other drugs did not exist. And, two, the government's war on drugs is big cause of the current crime rate. So I don't think you can have it both ways.

Before you harp on guns, maybe you should outlaw alcohol first. In 80% of the homicides in the USA, the victim, the perp or both were intoxicated.

Really your post reflects nothing more than wishing thinking, because with or without terrorism, people are going to die in wrecks, because of falls, because of fights, and because of drugs.

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]

I think its niave to remark that the government can make cars safer. Pray tell, jaredl. What new safety feature do you have in mind? Go back to the 1950's through early 70's and look at those cars. With seatbelts, they are much safer than the cars of today. They had more mass and stronger frames. We don't have that today because of a cost/benefit analysis.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I'm no designer or engineer. However, cars have been getting safer as time goes on, so I think it's naive to think that further investment wouldn't help. Also, it's not necesary to make cars more safe to reduce the death rate in accidents, roads themselves could be made safer by improving them as well as lighting on roads.

[ QUOTE ]

It's funny that you mention drugs and crime. One, people are going to invent [censored] to get high with in their basements if marijuana and other drugs did not exist. And, two, the government's war on drugs is big cause of the current crime rate. So I don't think you can have it both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have in no way suggested continuing the so called "war on drugs." I think a more sensible policy is needed. However, if the government say supported drug treatment programs that would help. This will obviously be seen as a blasphemy by some conservatives, but it's pretty clear that such investment would actually save more American lives than current funds that go to fighting the so-called "war on terror."

Again, I'm not an authority on how the money should be spent, that should be decided by people with more information than I have. However, it clearly could be spent more efficiently.

[ QUOTE ]

Before you harp on guns, maybe you should outlaw alcohol first. In 80% of the homicides in the USA, the victim, the perp or both were intoxicated.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't harped on guns. Domestic gun crime is a bigger problem in terrorism in this country, however. My point here is that no matter what you think the solution is to this, surely increased investment in domestic crime would lower the crime rate by more than the same investment would reduce the murdered by terrorists rate. If that's hiring more police officers, that alone would most reduce the number of violent crime deaths at least a little bit.

[ QUOTE ]

Really your post reflects nothing more than wishing thinking, because with or without terrorism, people are going to die in wrecks, because of falls, because of fights, and because of drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it's wishfull thinking. My point is that so few people die in terrorist attacks that if we want the federal government to invest in saving lives, they should spend a hell of a lot more of that money domestically. If you think that we should not be spending the money on such liberal things, then the answer should be that the money shouldn't be spent at all.

[morphball]

Wow, you are simply guilty of the same lollygagging feel good stuff that is the norm for five year olds.

You're point was that the government should not fight the war on terror because of all these other bigger problems. As I tried to point out, these problems are by and large unsolvable, and usually made worse than improved when the government steps in, i.e. the "War on Drugs"

So you mention that car wrecks kill a lot of people. Why is that odd at all? In cars you go 50+mph. How fast were human beings meant to travel? (Hint, the speed a human can run.) So it's invetible that people are going to die traveling at speeds they weren't supposed to travel. Add in the fact that humans are zipping around each like pinballs/bumber cars at speeds they weren't supposed to be going and I think 50,000, or whatever the number, is remarkably low.

Anyways, you say the government should do something. I ask you what the government could do, pointing out that cars were safer decades before because of their size and mass, and you respond with this nonsense...

[ QUOTE ]
have no idea. I'm no designer or engineer. However, cars have been getting safer as time goes on, so I think it's naive to think that further investment wouldn't help. Also, it's not necesary to make cars more safe to reduce the death rate in accidents, roads themselves could be made safer by improving them as well as lighting on roads.


[/ QUOTE ]

First you ignore my point that cars were safer in the past and then claim that they are getting safer, while conceding at the same time saying you don't know because you are not an engineer.

LOL, which one is it? Then you say, roads could be made safer and they could add lights. Why don't you tell me just what exactly causes most accidents?

You also point out that more people die from drugs then terrorism...I point out that people like to get high and that these deaths are just a fact of human nature. I also say that the government's attempt to stop it causes crime...you say in retort...

[ QUOTE ]
I have in no way suggested continuing the so called "war on drugs." I think a more sensible policy is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said more people died from illegal drugs than from terrorism. What else can that imply but that you think the government should get rid of illegal drugs? Maybe you should have thought a little harder about the numbers you wanted to use first. Here's another interesting tidbit.

More people die from tylenol every year than from terrorism. The FDA knows this, but yet you can still by tylenol at the store. How can that be? When you understand this one, you'll understand why your entire OP was a waste of time.

You then point to firearms as a danger, and I point out that alcohol is a huge factor in homicides. You say...

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't harped on guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

ORLY??

[ QUOTE ]
- 17,732 people were murdered
- 11,920 with a gun


[/ QUOTE ]

If you weren't harping on guns then why did you mention this at all? But then in immediate contradiction to yourself, you state...

[ QUOTE ]
Domestic gun crime is a bigger problem in terrorism in this country, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I mean can you even make up your mind at all? And to top it off, you continue...

[ QUOTE ]
My point here is that no matter what you think the solution is to this, surely increased investment in domestic crime would lower the crime rate by more than the same investment would reduce the murdered by terrorists rate. If that's hiring more police officers, that alone would most reduce the number of violent crime deaths at least a little bit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great, more police, when you have already conceded that outlawing drugs is a huge source of crime. Why don't you tell me exactly how more investment can stop gun related crimes. Maybe we should take our guns away? You know what, the government already sees fit to tell me what I can and cannot do in my living room. I think we better hold onto our guns for the day the government decides to really cross the line, and that day will come ...

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that so few people die in terrorist attacks that if we want the federal government to invest in saving lives, they should spend a hell of a lot more of that money domestically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. Terrorism if not about killing people, its about what happens to the rest of the people alive. Here's a little homework assignment for you, figure out why...

[JaredL]

[ QUOTE ]


First you ignore my point that cars were safer in the past and then claim that they are getting safer, while conceding at the same time saying you don't know because you are not an engineer.

LOL, which one is it? Then you say, roads could be made safer and they could add lights. Why don't you tell me just what exactly causes most accidents?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that it is false that if any entity, the government or private, devoted 100 billion dollars toward making cars safer that it would have an effect on the number of fatalities and serious injuries on the roads? Do you think that if the government spent 100 billion dollars improving roads, it would lead to fewer highway deaths?

On the drug and gun issue, I don't see how I've pushed ANY point of view on what would solve these problems. I have said that an increased effort would help, and it would. Gun crime is a real problem in the country. That, and simply citing the number of murders by guns, does not indicate that I am "harping on guns," but that I think more could be done wrt to these types of crimes if the government invested domestically, than can be done by "fighting terrorists" abroad.

Also, I'm not sure if you're being intentionally thick, but saying that more people died of drug overdoeses than on 9/11 does not indicate that drugs need to be eliminated. It indicates that if something were done about the problem, whatever that solution involves, more lives could be saved there than would be given up by terrorist attacks.

[ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. Terrorism if not about killing people, its about what happens to the rest of the people alive. Here's a little homework assignment for you, figure out why...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because the American people by and large suffer from the same problem. They exaggerate the effect of the attacks thus giving them more power. 3000 people dying isn't a big deal relative to the huge number of people that die in other causes. However, people freak out worrying that they will get attacked when that's extremely unlikely and should be a nonfactor.

The mindset I'm suggesting would greatly reduce the effectiveness of terrorist attacks.