

Undressing the Terror Threat: Running the numbers and changing the game - cwan
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644651587677752.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEADNewsCollection

======
necubi
It's depressing how true and yet pointless these sorts of essays are. Very
smart people have been pointing out for years that our current security
apparatus makes no sense, but it's still political suicide for any politician
to admit this obvious fact. Instead we get non-sensical additions to an
already silly system every time someone like the underwear bomber gets
through.

What's the answer? Perhaps it's just the conventional wisdom that Americans
can't be treated as adults and told the truth about the true costs of absolute
security (an impossibility). I would like to see a politician brave enough to
say that, though I fear that the conventional wisdom is correct and such talk
is impossible for a candidate wishing election.

~~~
mixmax
I think both the cause and solution to the problem lies in education. The
general American public is alarmingly undereducated, and a well educated
population is the foundation of a functioning democracy. This is btw. also why
democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is such a mirage.

~~~
extension
Too late. Education may have done the trick at one point but now the internet
has stepped in to fill the void. Citizens can now get all the education they
can eat in whatever half-baked ideology they crave.

The new problem is polarization. Truth is not an absolute fact to be
uncovered, it's a trophy to be won by the team with the loudest and sexiest
ideas, though the game never really ends.

Just look at the comments for that article. You can pigeonhole every one of
them and they're all trying to pigeonhole the author.

The only thing we need to be educated in is rational, critical,
_dispassionate_ thought and I have no idea how to teach that.

~~~
mixmax
Good observation. But I would say that the key takeaway from a good
educational system isn't so much facts as it's the ability to discuss matters
in a civil manner. Good discussion helps against polarisation.

The Internet hasn't exactly helped in teaching the public civil discourse. As
you point out - just look at the comments in the article. Or on youtube, Digg,
etc. A proper educational system will teach people to disagree based on facts
and evidence, learn from their mistakes, and help them discern fact from
anecdotal evidence, bad science, and good old-fashioned yelling.

~~~
henrikschroder
It's a known fact that electronic communication actually encourages
disagreement, as opposed to face-to-face communication which encourages
agreement, and from that you could draw the pessimistic conclusion that people
will never learn to broaden their minds by discussing things over the
internet.

But at least they're talking to other people. At least they're actually
exposed to differing viewpoints, many many more differing viewpoints than if
the internet didn't exist. There's probably something good coming out of that,
even if it looks like people are as small-minded as usual.

~~~
hackerblues
"At least they're actually exposed to differing viewpoints, many many more
differing viewpoints than if the internet didn't exist." (citation needed)

It isn't at all obvious to me that this is true. It seems quite plausible that
the vastness of the internet allows people to find specialised forums of
people who all think exactly the same way they do. Eg, conservapedia.

~~~
extension
Much as the internet evolved from anti-social to ultra-social, I have to
believe that one day, with the invention of the right tools, it will come to
promote wisdom rather than exacerbate an existing form of ignorance, as it
does today.

------
barrkel
Minor quibble:

> _(2) If terrorists should manage to kill or injure or seriously frighten any
> of us, they win._ "

Terrorists win when they achieve their objectives. Terrorism is a tool, not an
end. As I understand it, Islamic terrorists want to provoke the US into armed
confrontations with the Islamic world, and thereby increase extremism and
generally cement the positions of hardliners, with particular focus on
overthrowing the US-friendly Saudi regime.

~~~
wrs
You're talking about reality; he's talking about politics. If somebody
succeeds in blowing up another plane, the political fallout will be much, much
worse than what comes of armed confrontation with the Islamic world--which,
after all, happens practically every day.

~~~
barrkel
Well... an attempted bomber comes from Yemen, now people start thinking about
maybe focusing attention on Yemen. Maybe Somalia too. And there are riots on
the streets of Egypt because the US is paying off Mubarak to isolate Gaza,
what with their democratically elected government not being popular enough
with the Israel.

The US seems to me to be playing a very predictable game, manipulated into
being the big bad guy in the Islamic fundamentalist story. And when a chunk of
the US citizenry won't stand for doing nothing in the face of terrorism, the
body politic is paralyzed by its fear and can be directed like a herd of
cattle. I have read supposedly rational people actually say that "fighting
them over there is better than fighting them here", as if terrorism was some
kind of thing you beat by killing people. The mind boggles.

------
GavinB
"Other bad things are happening" has never been a convincing argument in any
arena, regardless of the statistics. The source of the terror is not that
there are deaths, but that the murderous intent is emotionally directed at
them.

The rally cry needs to be "We refuse to be intimidated."

~~~
coffeemug
_"Other bad things are happening" has never been a convincing argument in any
arena, regardless of the statistics._

I agree with you that there is a very serious qualitative difference between
traffic accidents, spousal murders of passion, and gang-related murders on the
one hand, and acts of terror based on ideals and intended to intimidate us on
the other. However, any time you have a limited set of resources and a
practically infinite number of possibilities on how to allocate them (which is
pretty much always the case), rigorous statistical risk/reward analysis is the
only sensible way we know of to make good decisions. I agree that qualitative
differences must be taken into account, but I think current policy is far too
reactionary and sensationalist (furthermore, it doesn't fill me with too much
confidence). 9/11 was not what some blogger referred to as a "sucker punch" -
it was a big deal worthy of reorienting the foreign policy precisely because
of the qualitative difference you mentioned. Some incompetent schmuck with
some flammable (not even explosive) material in his underwear - I really don't
need to hear about that on TV.

~~~
lutorm
I disagree. If I'm dead, I'm dead regardless of whether I died in a traffic
accident or a terrorist attack. This emotional reaction is what people have to
fight. A terrorist attack is only more scary because you let it be.

------
yummyfajitas
Fun fact: modern security measures are adequate. Any threats which can get
through can be easily prevented by passengers.

All we need to do is add another segment to the airplane safety films: "In the
unlikely event of a muslim looking passenger trying to set their shoes on fire
or inject chemicals into their underwear, pour water on them. After they are
thoroughly soaked, start punching them in the face."

Of course, I don't expect any politicians to admit this. "You need to protect
yourselves" doesn't get as many votes as "I'll protect you from those bad
scary foreign devils."

------
motters
This is a problem of amplification. The modern media greatly amplifies any
small incident, and to many people this translates into a high probability
threat that they need to urgently pay attention to. Also, when incidents are
reported no additional contextual information is given which would permit the
viewer/reader to better evaluate the situation. This was especially true with
some of the vaccination and food scares, which to the casual observer appear
highly alarming but are statistically insignificant.

------
kiba
_Given these statistics, there is little doubt that banning private gun
ownership and making life without parole mandatory for anyone convicted of
murder would reduce the homicide rate in America significantly._

While there are 200 million guns in private ownership as mentioned in the
article, it does not necessary follow that it positively correlates with
murder rate. In fact there is no mention of any correlation of ownership of
guns to murder rate in the article.

The only mention is that guns are often the weapon of choice in attempting
suicide.

Recalling from memory, legal ownership of guns, are in fact, correlated with
crime reduction.

Additions to back up my memory claim:
[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n13_v50/ai_20...](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n13_v50/ai_20977860/)

~~~
scotty79
There is no correlation between gun ownership and murders because if you want
to kill someone and plan for it you have fair odds of succeeding even if you
use rolled newspaper as your murder tool.

On the other hand there is a correlation between gun ownership and homicides
because killing human accidentally is most easily achieved by use of gun
(maybe I'm wrong and the car is best tool and gun second best?).

------
scotty79
There is no better tool for improving government image that terrorist threat.
It's objectively pretty harmless threat that can be medially inflated to such
great size that control and security provided by government will seem
absolutely essential for all citizens.

I can't think of another harmless thing that will make having government along
with army, security and spies appear equally useful.

War is good at justifying existence of army but it's devastating so should be
avoided at all costs. Cold war was playing nice for few dozen of years but
enemy collapsed. So now we have terrorism. Good thing is it's much safer for
us.

