Asymmetrical Information

You appear to be making the assumption that the immediate, emotional reaction after 9/11 that terrorism is a HUGE threat is the correct, rational response. Terrorism is a risk, but is it as large a risk as is widely perceived?

(Before anyone says I am minimizing the threat of terrorism, twenty years ago I decided I would *never* live in a major seaport town because of how easy I thought it would be for terrorists to load a nuclear weapon on a ship and detonate it in the port)

I believe that there still has not been an adequate analysis of the true risks of terrorist attacks versus other threats (a flu pandemic comes to mind... which will kill more people, or if you don't like predictions ask instead which has in the past killed more people?).

We priortize our spending based upon what is *perceived* to be the largest risk, yet that perception may not be reality.

Both individually and as a society we need to learn how to better analyze both the probability of an event occurring and the likely consequences. I believe what we choose as priorities might look significantly different.

If you'll read my post again, you'll see that I explicitly acknowlege in the last paragraph that my emotional reaction in the days after 9/11 undoubtedly overweighted the risk of terrorism. I'm not saying that my current reaction is wrong; I'm just saying that I'm coming to it the wrong way.

Actually every year that goes by without a major domestic terrorist attack lowers our best estimate of the probability of such attacks and hence of the magnitude of the terrorist threat. This is especially true if you discount the fact that Al Qaeda had been trying to hit us for many years before 911. It is at least arguable that Al Qaeda got extremely lucky with the 911 attacks.

On the other hand it is foolish to ignore the successful attacks in England and Spain among other places when evaluating the domestic threat.

Jane - A few weeks ago you wrote a long post on your negative feelings about the war in Iraq. I think this current post goes a long way to explaining your changing view on the merits of the war. 9/11 was enough to get you (and a lot of us) to reexamine our world view. As our memory of that horrible day fades, it's only natural to go back to our usual thought patterns and assumptions about the world. We don't have time to examine every question ourselves. We adopt the attitudes of those we trust about matters we don't have time or the interest to examine ourselves. In your case, most of your views mirror those of the liberal elite in New York. That's understandable. It's the school of fish you swim with.

It's only where your education as an MBA conflicts with the group think that your BS alarm goes off when someone serves up a steaming pile and asks you to eat it. Someone advocating rent control? Your BS detector will sound so loudly we can hear it all the way out here in the red states. Someone suggest that the US military, as a matter of policy, abuses it's prisoners? You'll chow down.

I still think you should get out of New York City and spend some time in the red states. The Economist could use a series that compares the common wisdom (a/k/a what the MSM reports) with what is really happening. Not just in Iraq, but everywhere. Why, for example, did the press accept and publish without question the claims of war crimes made by an anti-war marine (whose claims have now been proven false)? Or, why, did the press repeat the claims of rape and murder occurring in the aftermath of Katrina (claims that, again, have been proven false)? I smell a Pulitzer, and that's no BS.

It was not only 9/11 but the (still unsolved) anthrax episode. What little we knew about the sources led to a rational expectation of more frequent attacks. I still don't understand the anthrax, and why we haven't seen another episode.

Even ignoring any other information, I do think frequency of events can be useful data, if not sufficient. I have lived in a tornado alley for twenty years; have had tornados pass within five miles of me multiple times; yet I do not follow the precautions on watches or warnings. Twenty years has taught me the odds are minimal; and the precautions not that effective. The precautions are not onerous; but it is valuable to overcome the fear and anxiety.

Excluding nuclear terrorism, we are likely wildly overreacting.

"I still think you should get out of New York City and spend some time in the red states."

Uhh, David, I live on the fringes of Dallas in a blue collar city/neighborhood and I am not seeing a lot of houses shrink-wrapped against bio-chem attack. I don't sense an overwhelming fear of an imminent al Qaeda attack on Texas Stadium. But maybe I am simply not going to the right meetings and talking to the smarter people.

Jane,

Your fear of losing rights is probably also based on time.

Nearly all of us are familiar with the bi-weekly removal of hundreds of dollars from our paychecks by government agencies. Many of us have had the experience of being fined for driving a few mph over the speed limit. Many of us have been drafted to fight wars we oppose. Some of us have had the direct experience of police brutality, and nearly all of us have heard stories. We are aware that our lives are constantly manipulated by a complex web of government regulations. We also have a historical sense of the threat posed by an overly powerful government - and that fear is well documented in the constitution.

Truth is, we should allow external threats to fade from memory. If not, we would not have a friend in the world - as we've been at war with nearly everyone at some point in our history. But we should never lose our fear of our own government. It is a constant and immediate threat.

I'm not saying that my current reaction is wrong; I'm just saying that I'm coming to it the wrong way.

Is this necessarily true? Obviously, the simple passage of time isn't an argument, or a rational cause for changing your mind in itself, but it could be the cause of your ceasing to be irrational.

Say you were blind drunk last night, and decided to get a horse to keep in your apartment as a pet (just a little one!). Now say that this morning you are re-examining that decision, and decide that it's misguided. The cause of your re-examination is the simple passage of time and metabolism of alcohol, neither one of which is a valid argument. Still, the passage of time means that you are more likely to reason successfully now than you were then.

(This isn't a proof that you were wrong before and you are right now -- I'm just saying that the fact that your mind is changing for reasons that aren't themselves valid arguments does not necessarily impugn the validity of your new position.)

Bob - What part of the Dallas area do you live in? We lived in Desoto for close to 8 years before moving back to Arizona in 2000. Small world, huh?

Oh, you were objecting to some aspect of my comment in response to Jane's post? Well, my comment was a response to her post on how she's worrying less about terrorism these days -- but my view of that post was seen through the lens of her posts a few weeks back about how badly the war effort was going. I'm glad you don't worry too much about a terror attack at Texas Stadium. I don't worry too much about an attack affecting me, personally, either. Neither did I the day after 9/11. So what?

Jane's views, as articulated in this blog, have been evolving. Not just on how much she worries about the terrorism but also on whether she considers the war to be worth the effort. (I'm sure her views have changed on lots of other subjects, as have mine.) Whenever there is a dramatic event, our views are likely to change. It's only natural for our views to revert back to "normal" with time.

What is unusual is for someone to so self aware that they notice this change in view and question whether their views are changing for the better. Jane's ability to do this gives me hope that she is one of the few who can see beyond her own natural bias and question whether the common wisdom is right. That's why I think she should get out of New York and question the perception of reality presented in the MSM. She would be great at it and it could be a great service to our country.

"What part of the Dallas area do you live in? We lived in Desoto for close to 8 years"

More paranoid about the web than about terrorism, so let's simply say much closer to DeSoto than to Richardson. We were neighbors.

I think we need to snug down the focus of our terms a bit.

When speaking of the "threat" of terrorism, most people instinctively think of the likelihood of personal physical harm. That threat, statistically speaking, was never great. (Of course, by that rather academic standard, AIDS, breast cancer, auto accidents, etc. aren't great threats either.)

The threat from terrorism extends far beyond physical harm to individuals to include the potential to devastate our culture and way of life. One vial of anthrax at a Super Bowl would qualititatively change our lives; people would presumably have to be searched - thoroughly enough to find a vial - before being allowed to join any public gathering. The effect on our economy, our culture, our way of life, and our outlook, would all change irretrievably, in part because Americans are a bit neurotic about health and safety. No stiff upper lips for us.

That's the real threat of terrorism. It could change our history as a people.

Fear of terrorism isn't irrational. Fear of being *killed* by terrorists is, unless you live or work in a high-risk area like Manhattan. But terrorist attacks do immense economic damage too, as well as damage to quality of life. The odds of being killed by a terrorist are remote, but the odds of losing money or property because of terrorists are very high.

I think people too readily dismiss the extent to which the government IS protecting us from terrorists. Iraq and Israel have demonstrated that there's no shortage of nutty Muslims willing to detonate themselves for the sake of murdering a few dozen enemies of Islam. Yet none of them operate here in America, even though we're the power behind Iraq and Israel. Either (a) they mysteriously don't want to attack us in our own country or (b) they are, in fact, being prevented from doing so. I'm pretty damned sure it's (b).

Dan and Occam’s Beard both make excellent points. I would just like to add one additional point.

One thing that those who think the question is “are you more worried about another terrorist attack or the loss of your civil liberties” need to consider is that if there is another terrorist attack comparable to 9/11 or worse, its almost certain that the public is going to demand (and the politicians will deliver) far stricter measures than the ones they’re complaining about now.

It wasn’t as if we began screening people at the airports and public places, passed the USA Patriot Act, and created a Department of Homeland Security for the sheer joy of it.

Jane,

The thing I have feared the most about public sentiment post-911 is that New Yorkers would either forgive or forget 911. I live in SoCal, and am about as far away as any American from ground zero at the former WTC. I can't claim to be as touched or affected by it as anyone who was there. I can claim to be fearful that the next attack will be LAX or Las Vegas or something near me and that the next successful attack might very well be bigger than 2 planes flying into the WTC. I hate to see us drop our guard. Our Bill of Rights applies to citizens of our country. Our guests here need to be treated with dignity and respect, but they are guests not citizens. I don't have a problem with suspending habeas corpus for non-citizens in cases where really bad things are imminent. I don't fear it will be abused because it's too freakin costly to abuse. If LAX were to get nuked because non-citizens had habeas corpus, that would be a pretty big tragedy in my book. And besides, it's Lindsay Graham, not Trent Lott. I'm less worried about it.

Thorley, worrying about an attack and worrying about loss of civil liberties are cumulative, not substitutes. I'm certain that the additional airport screening makes us /less/ safe, not more.

The fact that 9/11 happened doesn't prove we weren't already taking all appropriate measures to defend against terrorism. Americans have this weird utopian viewpoint that all problems are solvable and all tragedies are preventable, but it's simply not so -- some tragedies will happen whether you overprotect or underprotect. No matter how severe, this was a single incident, and one data point does not constitute a trend.

You can combat risk by *increasing* freedom at least as effectively as by decreasing it, and it's a lot cheaper. Allow airlines to set their own security policies and you don't have a single point of failure in one-size-fits-all security policies. Allow passengers or pilots to be armed (assuming the airline consents) and you have a distributed, unpredictable cadre of defenders.

Most of all, if you regard 9/11 as a failure of US security policy, why should failure inspire us to give MORE power to the bureaucrats and regulators who failed? That makes no sense to me.

A car poses a higher statistical threat to you than a terrorist. The fact that the government is dispensing with one of the basic tenets of justice in order to "deal" with such a miniscule threat should give you great pause.

A car poses a higher statistical threat to you than a terrorist

Your statement isn't true in any useful sense. Cars are a net benefit -- not a threat. The net effect of terrorism is to make us, on average, poorer, less free, and slightly shorter-lived. The net effect of cars is to make us richer, more free, and longer-lived. You can't call something that lets you live a longer, happier, richer life "a threat" -- that makes no sense.

Also, I think you meant to pluralize "cars" and "terrorists". If you want to compare individual cars to individual terrorists, the latter are indisputably more deadly; cars kill more people than terrorists solely because cars outnumber terrorists by thousands to one or more.

The idea that, because we haven't been attacked recently, we won't be attacked at some point in the future is, to put it mildly, not well thought out.

The best explanation for why we havn't been attacked is twofold. First, we've likely reduced by a significant factor, Al Quaeda's offensive capability. Second, Al Quaeda has its hands full in Iraq.

I've never understood those who operate on the assumption that the last conflict was the LAST conflict.
Here is the history of the 20th century:

1898 Spanish American War
1900 to 1914 No identifiable adversaries
1914-1918 World War I
1919-1933 No identifiable adversaries
1933-1939 Germany rearms and Japan
invades China, USA is oblivious
1939-1941 War in Europe, Finland and
China
1941-1945 World War II
1946-1990 Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam
1990-2001 Iraq I, Al Quaeda begins war
against USA, the West and
whoever
2001-present 9-11, the War on Terror,
Afganhistan, Iraq II

Only twenty eight out of the last 105 years have been essentially adversary or potential adversary-free. War or the threat of war has been the norm for the other seventy seven years. Substituting hope for reality and using only the very recent past to predict all of our tomorrow's is precisely the kind of wishful thinking that produced Pearl Harbor, the N.Korean surprise attack into S.Korea, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and 9-11.

I got involved in an extended thread discussion on Roger Simon's blog re: liberty v. protection. My libertarian point is that whatever the threat, the surrender of basic liberties is wrong. I was ultimately accused of not recognizing the war on terror (Roger had naught to do with any of this.)

I recognize that we as a free people have a battle against IslamoFascists on our hands, but we need not surrender our basic rights to fight this battle. The recognition of writ of Habeas Corpus is essential to our freedoms. I have always considered the suspension of said writ during the Civil War to be a blot on our national image.

Lincoln is recognized as the greatest President, and in many ways that is valid, but he had no respect for the Constitution, or common law, and in our historical review those points should be made.

I am not a lawyer, so if someone would like to take me to task for my interpretations, go for it.

Making rational assessments of the threat of terrorism is somewhat difficult. I do find interesting the calculus that terrorism is less dangerous than a car because there are thousands more cars than terrorists. Yet if you look at it more objectively in the damage done to society, cars and specifically drunk driving do much more damage than terrorists. Let's take a look at the numbers. Annually drunk driving kills 20,000 Americans. Another 500,000 are injured in drunk driving accidents. 9/11 the most spectacular terrorist attack killed roughly roughly 3,000 people and destroyed the World Trade center adversely affecting the lives of thousands due to the toxic dust but still smaller than the two years of drunk driving incidents.

The problem of drunk driving is easily solvable by simply mandating a breathalyzer be built into every car, requiring the driver breath into it before starting the car. In fact here in New Mexico, just such a bill was introduced but struck down as intolerable to our much cherished freedom to drive three sheets to the wind. (Please note I am not advocating the bill, merely pointing out an example).

Why not as a society decide to eliminate drunk driving? The societal costs are quite high. the preventative costs are quite low, especially when compared with the Iraq war. I think Americans like individual choice. Drunk driving has always been an individual choice. We don't want to treat people like children and moniter their every move.

The threat of terrorism has been largely to my mind overblown by most people. The people who committed 9/11 were all Muslem males from the Middle East. Stopping terrorism isn't impossible, it's just hard to be 100% successful. Here's Brian's little plan which really isn't too much different than the current administrations.

1. Stop immigration from these areas of the world. The administration has largely done this.

2. Stop immigration of Muslems from other parts of the world to the United States.

3. Those who have over stayed their visas or are here illegally, you deport.

4. Proactively work with your intelligence agencies in order to stop terrorist before they strike.

The Arab world roughly has an economic output roughly equal to Finland. Yet no one seems to fear the threat of a Finnish invasion.

We missed the threat of terrorism because we had just gotten over a VERY real threat, namely the Soviet Union. The Soviets had an extensive nuclear capacity, abundant natural resources and solid technical knowledge. If you grew up when the Soviet Union was still a threat, it's difficult to explain to someone. Terrorism in comparison is a managable threat.

I think that the threat of terrorism isn't that large. This isn't the greatest threat we have faced as a nation, but it's one we can manage. The spectactular nature of 9/11 highlighted that we have ignored this threat as a society. I believe we have made those adjustments. This doesn't mean some lone suicide bomber might make it through. They might. We might not be able to prevent it.

Europe is going to have it FAR worse than we are due to greater Muslem populations. The recents riots have proved that. That's just a taste of the future for France.

The recognition of writ of Habeas Corpus is essential to our freedoms.

The bill in question would strip the right to habeas corpus from noncitizens. It is essential to Americans' freedom that Americans have access to habeas corpus. It is not essential to Americans' freedom that Syrians and Italians and Zimbabweans have that right.

That doesn't necessarily make stripping them of that right a good idea, of course. But there's a world of difference between the government having the power to lock up foreigners, and the government having the power to lock up *voters*. We don't want the government able to lock up the very people it is accountable to.

Yet if you look at it more objectively in the damage done to society, cars and specifically drunk driving do much more damage than terrorists

Cars do no damage to society.

You are making the classic mistake of ignoring the benefits of a thing and focusing only on its negatives. It is impossible to make rational assessments of the damage a thing does that way. Rational people weigh the benefit of a thing against the harm it does. For example, by your standards modern medicine does immense damage to society -- tens of thousands of people die from failed medical procedures every year. But a rational person would look at the millions of lives *saved* every year and say "modern medicine does not damage society; modern medicine helps society". And so it is with cars -- cars do not damage society in any reasonable sense of the word.

Terrorism, on the other hand, does damage society. Yes, terrorism "only" killed 3000 people on 9/11... but what benefit, exactly, did it provide to Americans in exchange for those 3000 lives? None whatsoever.

Annually drunk driving kills 20,000 Americans

Last year there were 12,874 fatalities from crashes in which one or more drivers was legally impaired. Even if we assume the impaired people were to blame for every single one of those fatalities, you're still wildly off in your claim.

Why not as a society decide to eliminate drunk driving? The societal costs are quite high. the preventative costs are quite low, especially when compared with the Iraq war

Quite low? Billions of dollars a year, every year, just to equip new cars sold with the equipment you describe; tens or hundreds of billions more to retrofit existing cars. God knows how much for the bureaucrats, lawyers, inspectors, enforcement officials, and associated bullshit necessary to police the system. Permanent loss of freedom and routine humiliation for everyone in America. That's your idea of a cost that is "quite low"? I beg to differ. The Iraq war has certainly been expensive, but it is a short-term cost, not a permanent one, and we haven't had to lose any freedom or submit to constant humiliating tests in order to fight it.

The Arab world roughly has an economic output roughly equal to Finland.

That's completely wrong. Saudi Arabia alone has twice Finland's gross domestic product, and Iran (which isn't Arabic, but does sponsor terrorism) has over triple Finland's GDP. Of course, all this is moot, since even $1 billion would be enough to buy a million airplane tickets or explosive belts. The notion that the Arab world is too poor to threaten us is simply stupid. Money isn't the issue; if it was, the USSR would have won in Afghanistan and the United States would have won in Vietnam. Terrorist attacks have an enormous payoff in terms of damage done per dollar invested.

Annually drunk driving kills 20,000 Americans

Last year there were 12,874 fatalities from crashes in which one or more drivers was legally impaired. Even if we assume the impaired people were to blame for every single one of those fatalities, you're still wildly off in your claim.

Well it's not "wildly" off. It's off however. Even at your reduced numbers it's still a lot of people. Let's see some of your wildly off numbers

Quite low? Billions of dollars a year, every year, just to equip new cars sold with the equipment you describe; tens or hundreds of billions more to retrofit existing cars. God knows how much for the bureaucrats, lawyers, inspectors, enforcement officials, and associated bullshit necessary to police the system. Permanent loss of freedom and routine humiliation for everyone in America. That's your idea of a cost that is "quite low"? I beg to differ. The Iraq war has certainly been expensive, but it is a short-term cost, not a permanent one, and we haven't had to lose any freedom or submit to constant humiliating tests in order to fight it.

Where exactly did you come up with those numbers? Oh that's right you made them up. In one part you claim I am not being accurate when I make a generalization. The number of 20,000 was a general one albeit a little high. You probably shouldn't bitch about my general numbers in DUI deaths and then make up numbers in billions of dollars in costs. Here's the CDC site.

Quick Facts About Drunk and Drugged Driving

* An alcohol-related motor vehicle crash kills someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injures someone every two minutes (NHTSA 2004).

* Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are generally used in combination with alcohol (NHTSA 1993).

* Each year, alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost about $51 billion (Blincoe et al. 2002).

* Most drinking and driving episodes go undetected. In 2002, about 1.5 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (NHTSA 2004). That’s slightly more than one percent of the 120 million self-reported episodes of alcohol–impaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Dellinger et al. 1999).

* To further decrease alcohol-related fatal crashes, communities need to implement and enforce strategies that are known to be effective, such as sobriety checkpoints, 0.08% BAC laws, minimum legal drinking age laws, and "zero tolerance" laws for young drivers (Shults et al. 2001, Shults et al. 2002).

I AM NOT ADVOCATING that THIS BE DONE AT All. I think it's a completely moronic idea. I proposed it as a thought experiment and NOTHING more. As I said in the post

(Please note I am not advocating the bill, merely pointing out an example).

I was using it as an example of one way to potentially look at a problem and how you can rationalize the cost of a good. It's not my position at all. I agree cars are a net good to society but carry the additional cost of drunk driving. Clearly this wasn't as much of a problem with drunk horse riding :-).

The Arab world roughly has an economic output roughly equal to Finland.

That's completely wrong. Saudi Arabia alone has twice Finland's gross domestic product, and Iran (which isn't Arabic, but does sponsor terrorism) has over triple Finland's GDP. Of course, all this is moot, since even $1 billion would be enough to buy a million airplane tickets or explosive belts. The notion that the Arab world is too poor to threaten us is simply stupid. Money isn't the issue; if it was, the USSR would have won in Afghanistan and the United States would have won in Vietnam.

I see you ignore most of my post to nit pick a point. I remember reading it the National Review yet I cannot find the reference anymore. Clearly I might be wrong here.

However looking at the threat rationally I believe it's on that can be dealt with. The examples you cited (Afghanistan & Vietnam) are perfect examples of insurgencies that received money and equipment from outside. For Vietnam it was a nearly continuous flow of supplies from Communist China and the Soviet Union. For Afghanistan the insurgency was aided by the US. Remember Vietnam was part of the global war on Communism.

What do these insurgencies have to do with terrorist attacking the US? I was thinking about terrorist attacks on the US, not the insurgency in Iraq. It's dangerous to conflate the two since they require different tactics.

Terrorists come from a rather small number of countries and share a common religous faith. It's actually pretty easy to segment them and prevent them from entering the country.

You are right that terrorist attacks have a "Terrorist attacks have an enormous payoff in terms of damage done per dollar invested." But that's the nature of asymetrical warfare. A guy wearing an explosive vest is pretty cheap when compared to a Bradley or an Ace. I just wanted to highlight several things and perhaps you will read them this time. Here they are again

1. Terrorism with Islamofacists are not the threat the Soviet Union were. Not even close.

2. Islamofacists have no effective means of attacking the US other than our troops in Iraq and hoping they can get someone into the United States again to launch an attack.

3. The worst case scenario everyone seems to bandy about is - What if terrorists get a nuke? What about biological weapons from the former Soviet Union? That tells us something about the nature of the threat. Terrorists don't nukes. The Soviets had a ton of them. So by securing nuclear materials in the Soviet Union and making sure Iran doesn't get an operational nuclear weapons program we can minize this risk.

I guess my larger META point is that in the history of the West this threat isn't as large as the Soviets or Nazis were in their time. It's managable. Now of course the Cold War seems like a distant memory, but 25 years ago the threat was very real.

Quite frankly everyone seems to have forgotten MAD , the Cold War and people run around like Chicken little - the terrorists are gonna get us. It's not that bad. We just have to be aware of the threat and adjust to it.

I'll sum up my response to the first half of your post: don't invent misleading statistics if you don't want them questioned.

Terrorism with Islamofacists are not the threat the Soviet Union were. Not even close

Interesting claim. I see no evidence for it, nor do I see why it would be relevant even if it were true. For example, there was no significant chance of the Soviet Union using nuclear weapons on the United States, because the Soviets did not want to die. There is a very good chance of any Islamic terrorist who gets nukes using them on the United States, because they're not worried about dying and don't have a home country to retaliate against. The Soviets posed a military threat to Europe and Asia, and thus an economic threat to us, but terrorism presents an actual physical threat that the Soviets never really did.

Islamofacists have no effective means of attacking the US other than our troops in Iraq and hoping they can get someone into the United States again to launch an attack

Oh, come on. Millions of poor and uneducated Mexicans manage to sneak in here on a regular basis. The idea that Arabs would have special trouble doing it doesn't pass a laugh test. Plus, of course, there are all those Americans and American interests outside of the United States. Perhaps you think that the government of, say, Argentina has their crack police force on the job protecting Americans from terrorist attacks, but I'm a little less confident in their competetence and honesty.

So by securing nuclear materials in the Soviet Union and making sure Iran doesn't get an operational nuclear weapons program we can minize this risk

And by concentrating really hard and conveniently forgetting that Pakistan and North Korea already have nuclear weapons. Both countries cheerfully sell weapons technology to all sorts of interested parties, neither of them is controllable by us, and the former is is in constant danger of being taken over by the same goons who set up the Taliban. And of course this also assumes that we find some magical way to prevent Iran from getting nukes we don't want them to have -- it worked so well with Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea, India, South Africa, France, and Israel, after all. Ninth time's the charm, maybe?

Terrorists will eventually get nukes, and will use them on us, unless we eliminate the problem of Islamic terrorism first. The idea that we can indefinitely prevent radical Muslims from getting their hands on such weapons is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Dan & Brian:

I'm following your exchange with great interest, and am about to butt in, then butt back out.

Dan, I have no idea whether you were an adult or near-adult before the Cold War ended, but I clearly recall my own perception (as an older teen & young adult) that while MAD was probably enough to ensure that the USSR wasn't going to nuke us no matter the provocation, I was still nervous that maybe I was wrong. After all, you didn't see American presidents removing their shoes at the UN... Who knew what those crazy Soviets might do? IOW, your "no significant chance of the Soviet Union using nuclear weapons on the United States" is obviously true now, but there were no guarantees at the time.

OTOH, Brian, it seems to me that you're looking at the terrorist threat in terms only of lives lost, which is not the calculus being applied by most commenters here. The loss to our society from terrorism includes truncation of some civil liberties, a pullback from an admittedly mostly idealized self-portrait of the US as a "nation of immigrants," more free-floating anxiety to add to the free-floating anxiety we already have, inconvenience for travellers, added costs for business, I assume immediate reservation of some innovations for military use that might in a relatively terrorism-free world be available to the public... plus lives lost, and these days, not just lives lost in direct terrorist attacks but the lives lost by our military in "managing" the threat.

I am a fervent supporter of our actions both military and diplomatic in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere to bring about an end to the conditions that (appear to) foster terrorism. Whether we'll succeed everywhere, I doubt very much, because we're dealing with free actors, at least on the nation-state level. But I think we will ultimately succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they're a start.

The problem with analyzing the terrorist threat by counting only American lives lost to date is that it ignores both the non-American body count and the body count if WMD are introduced into the equation. If and when that happens, there won't be any do-overs. Today's minimizers won't be able to retroactively explain why their attitude didn't play into to the larger picture we are seeing in DC today, the subext of which seems to be 9-11 is ancient history and probably an aberration and further confrontation with terrorists is, somehow, a bad thing.

I am glad Dan you thought the Soviets were rational enough not to use nukes. People living through the Cuban missile crisis certainly thought differently. I suggest you read some of the fiction of the era to get a sense of the nearly inevitable sense that the end was going to end in nuclear war and soon. Trust me - people were very certain we were going to die. I think it somewhat silly that an enemy armed with a full complement of 10,000 nuclear weapons and a million man army didn't pose a military threat to us and a guy with a nuclear back pack does. Is it because you think you can deter the Soviets? Sorry deterrence doesn't mean there isn't a threat. In fact deterrence only works if there is a threat. Of course in hindsight there they weren't going to attack us, but in the middle of the Cold War it was certain war was going to result. Keep in mind we fought a number proxy wars with the Soviets in Angola, Vietnam, North Korea, and Vietnam, and Central America and constantly thought these things would lead to full scale wars.

How to eliminate the threat of terrorism? That's a fine question and largely impossible to answer. Islam has had this radical component for centuries. The idea that our invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan will eliminate the radicals is somewhat silly. Remember these guys aren't rational actors. The Oklahoma city bombing proved that a few people can wreck havoc. Stopping the lone nut is next to impossible

Dan - How do you recommend we "we eliminate the problem of Islamic terrorism first"? Islam has had this component for centuries. It's a mind set and I am not certain how you eliminate a mind set that has a long history within the religion. I mean sure I would love to change the minds of every Islamic radical - I just think that's harder than simply securing our borders. Even if Iraq & Afghanistan were modern secular democracies, it would only serve to inflame a certain segment of the radical even further. Democracy is loathed by many of these people.

Just because this administration hasn't secured the borders doesn't mean it can't be done. What sounds easier?

A. Securing our borders.
B. Changing the minds of Islamic radicalists.

I vote A. I would like to kill them all but they aren't gathered neatly in a single country. It's a mind set. Remember that taxi driver that shot up El Air terminal in LAX? You cannot predict that behavior.

Proliferation is the greatest threat we face - SO shrugging your shoulders and saying a terrorist is going to get a nuke so let's end Islamic radicalism isn't a solution. Islamic radicalism is a mind set. We are lucky in that developing a nuclear weapon isn't exactly an easy thing. It almost certainly requires a nation state to develop and nation states can be deterred (ala the Soviet Union). Sell a weapon to a terrorist group - expect your country to be vaporized. Securing the nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union should be a huge priority for this administration.

Of the rogue states Dan mentioned with nukes - North Korea and Pakistan are the most dangerous. I would make it pretty clear to those countries that selling a weapon to a terrorist group would meet with an overwhelmning nuclear response. I think states are rational enough actors that they can be deterred. (Well maybe not North Korea - I have got no easy solution for that country)

As far as my calculus of lives lost - it's just one way of looking at it. Frankly the loss of America as "nation of immigrants" isn't something I am too worried about. Most other immigrants assimilate into America. I would gladly use another measurement.

Quite frankly we need to adjust to terrorism as a society and live with the inconviences. Britain did it and I am sure so can we. I am convinced the current government hasn't done enough to secure the borders and we might well pay for it.

Please note I am not recommending we secure the borders instead of eliminating terrorists. I think we need to do both.

Please note I am not recommending we secure the borders instead of eliminating terrorists. I think we need to do both.

penis pill pills.com size sizepro

There a a lot of intelligent comments to this post of Megan's, but I think that David Walser made a very good point. David Walser is a wise man. We should read what David has to say.
(You need to get a blog, David.)

So far as physical threat is concerned, do you know that I've never had a student in my self defense course who thought they were at risk before they were attacked? It's true! They might live in an area infested with lowlifes, and they might have indulged in behavior that simply screamed "Helpless victim!", but they never actually thought they were going to be attacked.

Take a look at terrorist acts committed by al-Qaeda since 1993 and you'll clearly see that they've been growing in complexity, technical expertise and effectiveness. Al-Qaeda might just have been the most sophisticated terrorist organization in the world at one point, but it is still that: just one terrorist organization. There's a bunch more where they came from.

We now have countries that are trying to build nuclear arms, have ties to terrorist organizations, and have leaders that are openly talking of genocide.

Everyone here is pretty smart. I don't have to draw you guys a picture.

I'm a big fan of civil liberties. Heck, I've been an active supporter of the 2nd Amendment for 15 years now. The rights we enjoy in the US are incredibly precious, delicate, and deserving of protection.

So the one question we have to ask ourselves is: Are new laws proposed by the administration actually going to help the fight against terrorism?

If the answer is "No" then they should be opposed. If the answer is "Yes" then a good, hard look should be taken before joining the protest march.

After all, the Israelis are much better at security than the US. This is why 9/11 happened there instead of Tel Aviv. I think New York would be the most obvious target if the terrorists got their hands on a nuke.

Hey, Megan, don't you and some of your family live in New York?

James

We all live in New York. The question, to which I don't know the answer, is whether we are more at risk from terrorists, or overzealous police.

If you're at risk from this then you are presently more at risk from overzealous lawmakers, not the police. But that's hardly the point.

What you should be asking yourself is this: Is the suspension of habeas corpus from non-citizens who are also suspected terrorists a legitimate tool in the quest to dismantle their organizations? More importantly, would doing so affect the rights of citizens?

If the answer is "Yes" for legitimate counter-terrorism tool but "No" for abridging the rights of citizens, then the excercise is over. This isn't a fight worth going to the barricades over, and opposing it might very well allow the terrorists to become a greater danger to you and your loved ones.

Change the answer for either question and it becomes a matter that is worth opposing.

Let me put it another way, one that should appeal to your Libertarian ideals.

The core purpose for every legitimate government is to protect it's citizens and their interests. Does Graham's bill do that? Would Graham's bill allow the government to violate it's core purpose of protecting US citizens and their interests?

James

But changing my priorities should be the result of rational analysis, not the simple passage of time.

How do you know that it's not the other way around; that you're not simply returning to a rational state of mind?

directv pay per view

Comments are Closed.