The irrational fear of terrorism has distorted the actual threat it poses (long)
02-27-2004, 09:36 AM
#1
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
Lately I've been thinking that the billions of dollar and huge political and military apparatus we have created to eliminate the threat of terrorism is almost insanely misplaced.
Some food for thought from the latest issue of Harper's about the rising cost of fear itself:
In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,662, and homicide another 17,330. No one on American soil was killed by terrorists in 2000 and only one in 1999. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors.
Anti-terrorism nevertheless has become the animating principle of nearly every aspect of American public policy. We have launched two major military engagements in its name. It informs how we fund scientific research, whose steel or textiles we buy, who may enter or leave the country, and how we sort our mail. It has shaped the structure of the Justice Department and the fates of 180.000 government employees now in the service of the Department of Homeland Security. Near every presidential speech touches on terrorism, and according to the White House, we can look forward to spending at least $50 billion a year on "homeland defense" for as long into the future as we can see.
Is all this really necessary? Not many lives will be saved and all the money will not ease the near-hysterical fear of terrorism that has been created.
Assuming that the $50 billion investment would have saved the lives of the 2,978 people killed by terrorists in 2001, that's a cost of $1,678,979 per life. An recent issue of USA Today had a major article questioning the wisdom of safety improvements to automobiles that would cost far less per life saved.
I think we have got things totally out of whack. The emphasis on terrorism by our government is, in my view, a very opportunistic and convenient means of distracting attention from far greater threats to our future.
Some food for thought from the latest issue of Harper's about the rising cost of fear itself:
In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,662, and homicide another 17,330. No one on American soil was killed by terrorists in 2000 and only one in 1999. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors.
Anti-terrorism nevertheless has become the animating principle of nearly every aspect of American public policy. We have launched two major military engagements in its name. It informs how we fund scientific research, whose steel or textiles we buy, who may enter or leave the country, and how we sort our mail. It has shaped the structure of the Justice Department and the fates of 180.000 government employees now in the service of the Department of Homeland Security. Near every presidential speech touches on terrorism, and according to the White House, we can look forward to spending at least $50 billion a year on "homeland defense" for as long into the future as we can see.
Is all this really necessary? Not many lives will be saved and all the money will not ease the near-hysterical fear of terrorism that has been created.
Assuming that the $50 billion investment would have saved the lives of the 2,978 people killed by terrorists in 2001, that's a cost of $1,678,979 per life. An recent issue of USA Today had a major article questioning the wisdom of safety improvements to automobiles that would cost far less per life saved.
I think we have got things totally out of whack. The emphasis on terrorism by our government is, in my view, a very opportunistic and convenient means of distracting attention from far greater threats to our future.
02-27-2004, 10:01 AM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ranson, WV
Posts: 1,646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and that is why it is called terrorism.
it is all about the perception of danger, protection provided, etc.
xray and scan me all you want on my way to the plane for weapons. i can kill someone with my shoelaces or bare hands.
the bombs, guns, knives and such for a long time were meant to SCARE the other side into giving in and paying ransom, releasing prisoners, etc because it caused the fear of death.
nowadays it seems like so many groups just blow somehting up without warning, then say pay me or i will do it again.
it is all about the perception of danger, protection provided, etc.
xray and scan me all you want on my way to the plane for weapons. i can kill someone with my shoelaces or bare hands.
the bombs, guns, knives and such for a long time were meant to SCARE the other side into giving in and paying ransom, releasing prisoners, etc because it caused the fear of death.
nowadays it seems like so many groups just blow somehting up without warning, then say pay me or i will do it again.
02-27-2004, 10:08 AM
#3
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
So we should not be intimated, right, since we have very little to fear?
By reacting the way we have, we have played right into the terrorists hands. I'm sure this is exactly the reaction they hoped to generate -- the invasion of Iraq, for example, has created a stronger base for terrorism there than existed before we set foot in the place.
By reacting the way we have, we have played right into the terrorists hands. I'm sure this is exactly the reaction they hoped to generate -- the invasion of Iraq, for example, has created a stronger base for terrorism there than existed before we set foot in the place.
02-27-2004, 10:24 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Ranson, WV
Posts: 1,646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fear of being a victim of a terrorist to me as an individual takes up 0 time in my day. recent history has shown that i am more likely to die in an auto accident than a terrorist zapping me. they missed me twice in beirut, embassy bombed while we were landing coming back from a training mission in france, BLT headquarters, where i had been billeted, blown up 2 months after i had left. I was a mile away from WTC, heard/saw 1st plane go overhead.
we are all going to die sometime, old and peaceful in my sleep in bed sounds nice, others like to say die young and leave a beautiful corpse. i miss on both of those counts.....
there a few parents out there who would not say they would trade their lives for that of their child.
in life or death situations, most would say they would think themselves capable of killing someone else to protect themselves or a family member.
except for those unfortunate few to have been victims, more people have lost time, spent money, etc giving the appearance of preventing terrorism (really now, not allowing nail clippers on a plane????), protective measures that infringe on human rights, etc.
if we could only just get along with everyone and give the police nothing more to worry about than writing a few speeding tickets to overactive sports car clubs zipping about town....
we are all going to die sometime, old and peaceful in my sleep in bed sounds nice, others like to say die young and leave a beautiful corpse. i miss on both of those counts.....
there a few parents out there who would not say they would trade their lives for that of their child.
in life or death situations, most would say they would think themselves capable of killing someone else to protect themselves or a family member.
except for those unfortunate few to have been victims, more people have lost time, spent money, etc giving the appearance of preventing terrorism (really now, not allowing nail clippers on a plane????), protective measures that infringe on human rights, etc.
if we could only just get along with everyone and give the police nothing more to worry about than writing a few speeding tickets to overactive sports car clubs zipping about town....
02-27-2004, 02:11 PM
#5
IMHO the actions of the government to protect the citizens of this country against terrorism are not misplaced. I agree that fewer lives have been lost at the hands of terrorists than are lost by disease, etc., but there are those whose lives are spent dreaming of ways to kill Americans because we are "infidels". I do not like being stopped at airports and public buildings, opening up my bags for strangers to search, etc. I would prefer not to have to deal with taking off my shoes, removing my belt, jewelry, etc., but it is a small price to pay to feel at least some modicum of safety has been afforded me and the person in the seat next to mine on the plane is not going to produce a knife or a boxcutter or a pair of nail clippers and rip out my throat and commandeer my plane. There are those whose ideal in life in order to reach some level of success in the afterlife is to die along with as many Americans as he/she can take with them. So -- is it overstated? Personally, I think not. Should we live in horror and fear? No -- I think not. I think we should go about our lives as freely as possible and place our trust in those who are in positions to know more than we. I think we should follow the advice of our government officials -- this is the United States of America. We are a great country and we are a great people -- we will succeed in remaining so as long as we work together and stand for the freedoms that we all enjoy and love so much. We are not immune from acts of terrorism, however, I sleep pretty well at night and don't worry about terrorists because I know there are people employed by my government who do. That's just my opinion -- I'm anxious to read how others feel.
02-27-2004, 04:42 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Deptford, New Jersey
Posts: 3,698
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^^^ very well said, once again
Rick, for once I am at a loss of words for your distain towards our goverment and it's current leaders. It disturbs me when someone such as yourself harbors so much anger but yet has acheived so much in business, and family life in this great country of ours. I pray for our President everyday that he makes the right judgement when it comes to our freedoms and safety for without it nothing else matters.
Rick, for once I am at a loss of words for your distain towards our goverment and it's current leaders. It disturbs me when someone such as yourself harbors so much anger but yet has acheived so much in business, and family life in this great country of ours. I pray for our President everyday that he makes the right judgement when it comes to our freedoms and safety for without it nothing else matters.
02-27-2004, 04:49 PM
#7
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rick Hesel
Lately I've been thinking that the billions of dollar and huge political and military apparatus we have created to eliminate the threat of terrorism is almost insanely misplaced.
Some food for thought from the latest issue of Harper's about the rising cost of fear itself:
In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax.
Lately I've been thinking that the billions of dollar and huge political and military apparatus we have created to eliminate the threat of terrorism is almost insanely misplaced.
Some food for thought from the latest issue of Harper's about the rising cost of fear itself:
In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax.
Trending Topics
02-27-2004, 05:20 PM
#9
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St Paul
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Random thoughts, only some of which are related------
We do spend billions attempting to reduce the causes of death that you mentioned. If you include product safety and health care in general, and safety and medical research specifically, the total could easily exceed the amount spent on terrorism.
The #1 cause, heart disease, is largely self inflicted (lifestyle). Terrorism deaths are not. Yet we spend 10's of billions on attempting to reduce lifestyle related deaths, including smoking & AIDS. Should we say that the cost per life is too much? Do we let them die? Do we use actuary tables to determine how much research dollars to devote to a disease?
The terrorists in question certainly would kill more than 3000 if they could. It is the threat of future deaths against which we are spending money. The question then is, if we did not spend the money, would future deaths from terroism rise? Exponentially?
How close are we to a net gain in lives simply because there is no Taliban or Bath party anymore? Those groups killed at least 10's of thousands annually, perhaps more. If the war continues at a cost of 1000 lives & $50B per year, but we prevent the murder of 10,000 or 20,000 arabs per year, are we not better off?
Assuming that we take the terrorists statements at face value, their intent is certainly to subjugate at least hundreds of millions to Taliban style autocracy. Should someone step up to the plate & stop that? At what cost? Should we just ask them nicely not to do that?
Would the world be better off if France had stopped Hiltler in 1938 or 1939, when it had the power to do so? How much would it have cost & how many lives would have been saved? 20 million lives?
A couple thousand western troops could have stopped the murder of 500K in Rwanda. We watched from the sidelines.
$50B is only something like 10x what we spend on getting Viagra'd each year. Now THAT is a waste of good money that could be spend making the world a better place.
We do spend billions attempting to reduce the causes of death that you mentioned. If you include product safety and health care in general, and safety and medical research specifically, the total could easily exceed the amount spent on terrorism.
The #1 cause, heart disease, is largely self inflicted (lifestyle). Terrorism deaths are not. Yet we spend 10's of billions on attempting to reduce lifestyle related deaths, including smoking & AIDS. Should we say that the cost per life is too much? Do we let them die? Do we use actuary tables to determine how much research dollars to devote to a disease?
The terrorists in question certainly would kill more than 3000 if they could. It is the threat of future deaths against which we are spending money. The question then is, if we did not spend the money, would future deaths from terroism rise? Exponentially?
How close are we to a net gain in lives simply because there is no Taliban or Bath party anymore? Those groups killed at least 10's of thousands annually, perhaps more. If the war continues at a cost of 1000 lives & $50B per year, but we prevent the murder of 10,000 or 20,000 arabs per year, are we not better off?
Assuming that we take the terrorists statements at face value, their intent is certainly to subjugate at least hundreds of millions to Taliban style autocracy. Should someone step up to the plate & stop that? At what cost? Should we just ask them nicely not to do that?
Would the world be better off if France had stopped Hiltler in 1938 or 1939, when it had the power to do so? How much would it have cost & how many lives would have been saved? 20 million lives?
A couple thousand western troops could have stopped the murder of 500K in Rwanda. We watched from the sidelines.
$50B is only something like 10x what we spend on getting Viagra'd each year. Now THAT is a waste of good money that could be spend making the world a better place.
02-27-2004, 05:46 PM
#10
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jankemi