December 06, 2003
Risk of Terrorism
I finished reading Michael Moore’s book “Dude, where’s my country?” a couple of weeks ago. In the book, he made an interesting claim: There is no terrorist threat.
He wasn’t claiming that there is no RISK of death by terrorism. He meant that the RISK is so low we shouldn’t be basing our entire foreign policy, defense policy and domestic policy on that RISK.
How low is the RISK of death by terrorism? I found a website that lists all the conditions of death.
If we select the worst year for terrorism in the history of the United States, 2001. About 3100 people died. This ranks the risk of death by terrorism (for that year only) at about 99. Right up there with "Infectious Diarrhea" (0.00% of deaths). That's right, in 2001, you had as much of risk of dying by crapping to much as you did by terrorism.
Now if you average those deaths out over 10 years, you get about 400 deaths a year (lets assume a few more successful attacks that kill a couple of hundred people). That moves the risk down to the level of Penicillin allergies (also 0.00% of deaths).
Compare all this to something like Influenza with over 63,000 deaths a year (0.02% of deaths).
So how many billions of dollars are we spending to protect the American public from this deadly scourge? The following is from the 2004 budget for the Department of Health and Human Services:
Pandemic Influenza. The budget includes $100 million for a new effort to protect the American people against the possibility of pandemic influenza. To ensure the reliability of vaccine production and increase our ability to quickly produce greater quantities of vaccine in the case of a pandemic, some American vaccine production capacity must be converted from the current egg-based methods to cell-based technology. HHS will work with manufacturers to ensure that cell-based vaccine production capacity is established.
Yup, 100 million. 0.1 billion.
How much have we spent on protecting ourselves from a possible threat from Iraq? 200 billion and growing. The rest of the defense budget? 400 billion and growing. The department of homeland security? 40 billion and growing.
Are we insane?
Posted by Al Maline at December 6, 2003 10:29 AMIMHO, you’re missing a vital piece of motivation — what matters is not just the number of deaths per se, but the number of potential deaths in the future as well. Terrorism and fundamentalism do kill only an infinitesimal fraction of the population now (well, even that’s too much), but left unchecked will probably kill a lot more and cause a lot more grief.
Look back to the cold war - communism directly didn’t result any American loss of life, but left unchecked it would have destroyed freedom-loving ways of life.
It is only fitting that we expend our significant resources to fight back this significant menace.
No, I don’t think we are insane at all.
Posted by: Vivek at December 6, 2003 12:35 PMSee, the problem is that we are taking it out of hand. In fact, we are using terrorism as an excuse to do a lot of things and it seems to be the only selling point of the current administration.
But, on the other hand, considering Micheal Moore’s credibility on past issues, I d not think it is safe to quote numbers from his work and even I question it.
Posted by: Adam at December 6, 2003 12:44 PMWhoops, my fault - those are not his numbers. Nevermind then.
Posted by: Adam at December 6, 2003 12:48 PMYou have to consider the impact that terrorism has on the economy as well. It is estimated that the Sept 11 attacks dealt a 1.5 trillion dollar blow to the economy…a lot more than influenza ever would…
Posted by: Randy at December 6, 2003 01:22 PMVivek states:
…what matters is not just the number of deaths per se, but the number of potential deaths in the future as well.
Yes, but the potential deaths is the result of a potential RISK. Don’t think much of the risk of the flu? Read about the Influenza Pandemic of 1918. It killed over 600,000 Americans. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t take action against Terrorism; the emotional and financial impact of a terrorist act does magnify its effect over the actual risk. But lets get things back in perspective, and not just lash out indiscriminately. Our most effective response so far against another 9/11 type of attack has been to lock the airplane door. Cheap and effective. Republicans are constantly arguing against environmental regulations by stating that the regulation does not balance the risk against the cost. But when it comes to terrorism, is no cost is to high to bear? Posted by: Al Maline at December 6, 2003 02:48 PM
actually…
most researchers at the center for disease control will tell you that the next major “plague” will most likely be from influenza, due to its ability to adapt quickly and spread increadibly fast by multiple means…
the fact that most flu strains are now immune to the drugs and vaccines we use to fight the flu, when the strain comes along that is impervious to our medicine, we will have a serious health issue on our hands.
the sept. 11 attack did cause considerable financial loss for this country, however al maline is correct. the losses could be in the tens of thousands…something to consider.
Posted by: rob at December 6, 2003 06:47 PMSo far as I can ascertain, the most money that Bush has spent on protecting America from a terrorist threat has been on fighting a war which has questionable prior links to terrorism, and which to all appearances has been used as a tool for the incitement of terrorism elsewhere. Some protection he’s provided us.
In the meantime, our airports, ports, and borders are criminally unprotected and uninspected. Our human intelligence on the ground remains negligeable and our relationships with our allies, who could watch our back, seem to be very frayed.
In addressing the situation, I will give you two angles on the issue. The first angle is that the productivity losses of an epidemic as deadly as the one that struck in 1918 would be devastating, especially in a more populous country like ours is now. The second angle, is that if we take the WMD argument seriously, the next attack could be in the form of a virulent contagious pathogen.
The GOP would likely respond that it would be better to go over to countries with WMD and pound the hell out of them so they wouldn’t give stuff to terrorists. However, that only works, if you’ve already stopped that from happening. If it does happen, and you haven’t prepared, well, you’re out of luck, and you have failed to defend the lives of millions.
It is appalling that in an age where the next threat, natural or terrorist, may very well be a germ, that we have such undependable healthcare, and underfunded federal programs for dealing with epidemics and pandemics.
So am I safer because of the way the money is being spent? No. I feel this country is in more real danger, whatever the public feels, than it was before 9/11.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2003 01:22 PMAl, timely post. This coming election will be a referendum on many topics, not the least of which is setting priorities appropriately balanced to our needs and resources.
The environment, the Iraqi invasion, and the tax cuts have demonstrated this administration came to power with a prejudiced agenda that bears little to no consideration of current and real needs and resources. In fact, the only adaptability this administration has shown me is that of jumping this way and that according to polls with a single goal in mind, reelection.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 8, 2003 02:02 AMWe need to distinguish between known risks and unknown risks. We have a pretty good idea what an individual’s risk of dying from heart disease or cancer will be in 2004. But nuclear attack or smallpox? Who knows how many terrorist cells have vials of smallpox sitting around? For all we know, the risk of dying from a smallpox epidemic may be effectively zero, or it may be horrificly high.
Having said that, it is possible to recognize the dangers from terrorism without endorsing the current wackjob administration.
As for Michael Moore, he is a brilliant polemicist and, as far as I know, an honest man. When it comes to scientific issues, he’s an idiot. In Stupid White Men, he claimed that CVJD (“human mad cow disease”) is “scarier” than AIDS. (I believe he said “way scarier.”) To date, a couple hundred people have died from CVJD. His assessment was based on the idea that you can’t “kill” prions (the vectors of CVJD) because they’re “not alive.” This is so silly I almost feel embarrassed for him. A gun isn’t alive either, but it can be rendered inoperable.
Posted by: Woody Mena at December 8, 2003 08:34 AMAn interesting point made by Moore, but I think he must always be taken with a grain of salt. I haven’t read “Dude, Where’s My Country?” but if he neglects to mention the collateral damage of a terrorist act, then his argument isn’t very strong.
The fact is, terrorist acts inflict significant harm on the psyche and public confidence, which affect the markets and, consequently, public wealth and welfare. And there is a worldwide ripple effect that must also be considered.
Now I will agree that Moore’s premise is on target. The Bush administration policy on terror is rather egregious when you look at the issue with some perspective. It is a policy predicated on emotions of fear rather than logic. Rational or not, though, it reflects the natural human response to an external threat.
What I don’t understand is why do we end up spending so much money on fighting this battle? No matter how vigilant we are, our objective remains unattainable — this idealized notion of “security”. Regardless of how much force we exert or to what length we will go to pre-empt any threats, there will always be holes in our security. It’s not about how many lives we can protect, it’s really about how we can minimize their psychological impact. But think about the damage if one star athlete got sniped from the stands, followed by one major movie star out at a Hollywood nightclub, followed by a bomb explosion at a major university. Three easy enough acts that current security measures have little recourse to prevent. Each would immediately and significantly harm three important cultural institutions.
Despite our vigilence, there will ALWAYS be a way for the enemy to inflict terror, and the sooner we accept this fate the better our policy will be.
In the long run, the only real solution to terror is diplomacy.
Posted by: Andrew L. at December 8, 2003 05:27 PMIn the long run, the only real solution to terror is diplomacy.
I’m afraid this is about as far from reality as possible.
People in the west by now have a long history of settling disputes by discussion and diplomacy, post WW-II. The underlying assumption is that the other party is rational and will listen to reason.
Not so with the terrorists. To them diplomacy is just another sign of weakness — which is why the pacifist elements in the west play right into their hands. The terrorists are holding us hostage on our own notions of civilized conduct, which they do not share.
Give me one, just one, instance of when diplomacy has solved a terrorist problem.
Bodies like the UN, IMHO, do more harm than good by giving an equal forum to dictators and juntas, as well as free countries. Most of the multilateral “good” work in modern times was done by NATO — a military organization.
Ultimately, peace rests on strength, not wishy-washy notions of understanding and brotherhood. Like it or not, that is reality, and it has always been so (e.g. the Pax Romana)
I know its unpleasant, but an ugly threat demands an ugly response. The only way you can put out a terrorist problem is by speaking their language, not ours — meet their violence with our own. We will all be better off.
Posted by: Vivek at December 9, 2003 05:02 AMGive me one, just one, instance of when diplomacy has solved a terrorist problem.
In the long run, diplomacy is working in Ireland.
Give me an instance where military might has solved an international terrorist problem alone.
Posted by: Al Maline at December 9, 2003 09:05 AMI agree that “in the long run” diplomacy is what works.
Admittedly, once a person is angry enough to want to blow himself up, it is unlikely that any political or policy concession will change his mind. Such a person can only be identified and stopped, hopefully without bloodshed.
In the long run, however, there are certain political and social conditions that cause people to become terrorists. People kill each other all over the world, but suicide bombers (pardon me, homicide bombers) only exist in a few parts of the world. Why is that? If we can eliminate these underlying causes, we can eliminate terrorism. I know this sounds vague, but there must be something to work with here.
If it were true that “peace rests on strength,” then Americans would be the safest people on earth! We are armed to the teeth in our homes, and our military is ridiculously larger than anyone else’s.
Posted by: Woody Mena at December 10, 2003 08:24 AMThis is a classic misuse of statistics. Unless you are prepared to argue that terrorism DOES NOT incerease if left alone, and that terrorist attacks DO NOT become more deadly as they gain better weapons, the use of these statistics in this way is incorrect.
I doubt anyone here would like to sign on with those claims.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at December 10, 2003 02:31 PMSebatian, I think the point being made is that perceived injustice becomes a sword and recruitment poster for terrorists. The invasion of Iraq and Presidential reference to Crusades were perceived as unjust action and words, which made helped their numbers grow and their propagande sell.
Civil rights came about through the exposure to the public of horrific photos and stories of injustice under the Jim Crow system. Perceived injustice is a powerful rallying tool for creating an army to overthrow such injustice.
The invasion of Iraq in and of itself, was not unjust, the circumstances upon which it occured, gave that appearance to 100’s of millions of persons around the world.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2003 04:08 PM
