4 ms·

There are roughly 20 Million Flights world wide per year. During the period of those 5 incidents, there were over 220,000 flights. (4 days) Yes, it would suc

There are roughly 20 Million Flights world wide per year. During the period of those 5 incidents, there were over 220,000 flights. (4 days) Yes, it would suck to be on one of those flights, but your chances are extremely low. 00.0023% of flights are impacted. You have less than a 1 in 43,000 chance of being on one of those flights. But... if you are on one of those flights where there is suspected terrorist activity, at a rate of 1 actual attack attempt per year (I couldn't get an exact number, but I bet that is pretty close) Your chances of being killed quickly become much, much higher at 1 in 365. I know I will be downgraded because people don't agree with me, but the reality is that terrorism is real, and if I am on a plane, I'd rather them be safe then sorry. Doing so makes attacks much less likely to succeed which will help reduce attacks.

henrikschroder 15y ago
> but the reality is that terrorism is real Many things are real. Lightning strikes. Car accidents. Meteorites to the head. Tsunamis. Smoking. Fat. Dying because of a terrorist attack is way, way, way, way down on the list of stuff you are likely to die from, so the only rational thing to do is to worry about the stuff ABOVE it on the list. Like driving. Or eating right. Or not smoking. Get your priorities right.
- SonicSoul 15y ago
  so you wouldn't worry about lightning storms in your sleep, but if you are out in the field during one you'll probably take some precautions? maybe get out from under the tallest tree? You probably wouldn't completely ignore it.
  - georgieporgie 15y ago
    Lightning precautions are based on the testable realities of physics. There is no relation between that and the voodoo pseudo-security that is the TSA and public 'security' in general.
    - wtvanhest 15y ago
      This is true, it is hard to prove if what the TSA does is actually preventing terrorist attacks. Just because it is not proven does not mean it is not working.
    - SonicSoul 15y ago
      i am not defending TSA. Just pointing out the psychology of people who feel that their lives are in possible danger.
- wtvanhest 15y ago
  A single successful attack causes Billions of dollars in losses. Look at load factors after September 11th. Planes were empty for months.
paol 15y ago
So, you can clearly do the math, and still choose to be irrationally afraid. That's... interesting.
Silhouette 15y ago
I don't know what sort of maths you're arguing for here, but your argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. If we assume there are about 100,000 flights per day worldwide (a quick Google suggests this is a reasonable round-figure estimate) then there are 36.5 million flights per year. If there is 1 actual attack attempt per year, then your chance that a flight you are on is a target is only 1 in 36,500,000 or so. Then, of course, many such attacks apparently do not succeed if your one-per-year rate is accurate, and even a successful attack may not kill you, so your real odds of dying due to a terrorist attack on an aircraft are going to be lower. Even someone who flies a few times per year probably has lifetime odds of dying due to such an attack of 1 in 1,000,000. In other words, you're more likely to be hit by an asteroid, drowned in a tsunami, blown up by a firework, or fatally attacked by a dog. Of course, you are also 50x more likely to die in a non-terrorism-related air accident, and 200x more likely still to die in a motor accident. (See, for example, http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html) The one I find most amusing is when the advocates of the virtual strip search machines trot out the line about how statistically only a handful of people per year are likely to get cancer as a result of those machines who wouldn't otherwise have done so, while conveniently overlooking the fact that the odds of being killed in the hypothetical air-related terrorist attack they are "protecting" us from are even lower. Basically, the reality is that terrorism is real but the threat it poses is insignificant compared to numerous much greater risks that we don't rewrite our lives for. The extra danger created directly by the "improved security" is probably at least as bad. The extra danger created indirectly, for example because more people choose to drive than to fly, is very much greater than the original threat.
- wtvanhest 15y ago
  The problem with your logic is that the statistics you give are based on there being security. Without it, you have no idea how high the number of successful attacks on planes would be. The chance of dying in a auto accident is still really low. Should we start allowing drinking and driving, no air bags, no speed limits etc. because those laws are annoying to you? I, like everyone else would appreciate less restrictive security, but some level of security has to be present on aircraft. Without it, there would be far more incidents. Especially non terrorist activities like people bringing guns on board for hijackings etc. Security at airports is effective against a wide range of attacks, not just organized terrorism. (I used 2000's number of flights to estimate today's. 20M)
mikeash 15y ago
"Rather be safe than sorry" is not a very useful statement. Any time you step out of the house you're taking some sort of risk. Each person has their own tradeoff between reducing risk and living life, but except for a very few people (who are universally considered to be mentally ill), nobody sets that tradeoff at zero risk and zero life. To imply that you would want to take any measure to make travel safer no matter how small the risk already is makes no sense. If you are that sensitive to risk, you shouldn't be traveling at all.
jerf 15y ago
You got downvoted because you did the statistical equivalent of begging the question. Assuming that you are going to be attacked and killed by terrorists, the odds of you dying via terrorist attack are 100%. P(A|A) = 1. (I know you didn't go to this extreme, but you did the same basic thing.) This is not an interesting result.

henrikschroder 15y ago

> but the reality is that terrorism is real Many things are real. Lightning strikes. Car accidents. Meteorites to the head. Tsunamis. Smoking. Fat. Dying because of a terrorist attack is way, way, way, way down on the list of stuff you are likely to die from, so the only rational thing to do is to worry about the stuff ABOVE it on the list. Like driving. Or eating right. Or not smoking. Get your priorities right.

SonicSoul 15y ago
so you wouldn't worry about lightning storms in your sleep, but if you are out in the field during one you'll probably take some precautions? maybe get out from under the tallest tree? You probably wouldn't completely ignore it.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Lightning precautions are based on the testable realities of physics. There is no relation between that and the voodoo pseudo-security that is the TSA and public 'security' in general.
  - wtvanhest 15y ago
    This is true, it is hard to prove if what the TSA does is actually preventing terrorist attacks. Just because it is not proven does not mean it is not working.
  - SonicSoul 15y ago
    i am not defending TSA. Just pointing out the psychology of people who feel that their lives are in possible danger.
wtvanhest 15y ago
A single successful attack causes Billions of dollars in losses. Look at load factors after September 11th. Planes were empty for months.

paol 15y ago

So, you can clearly do the math, and still choose to be irrationally afraid. That's... interesting.

Silhouette 15y ago

I don't know what sort of maths you're arguing for here, but your argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. If we assume there are about 100,000 flights per day worldwide (a quick Google suggests this is a reasonable round-figure estimate) then there are 36.5 million flights per year. If there is 1 actual attack attempt per year, then your chance that a flight you are on is a target is only 1 in 36,500,000 or so. Then, of course, many such attacks apparently do not succeed if your one-per-year rate is accurate, and even a successful attack may not kill you, so your real odds of dying due to a terrorist attack on an aircraft are going to be lower. Even someone who flies a few times per year probably has lifetime odds of dying due to such an attack of 1 in 1,000,000. In other words, you're more likely to be hit by an asteroid, drowned in a tsunami, blown up by a firework, or fatally attacked by a dog. Of course, you are also 50x more likely to die in a non-terrorism-related air accident, and 200x more likely still to die in a motor accident. (See, for example, http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html) The one I find most amusing is when the advocates of the virtual strip search machines trot out the line about how statistically only a handful of people per year are likely to get cancer as a result of those machines who wouldn't otherwise have done so, while conveniently overlooking the fact that the odds of being killed in the hypothetical air-related terrorist attack they are "protecting" us from are even lower. Basically, the reality is that terrorism is real but the threat it poses is insignificant compared to numerous much greater risks that we don't rewrite our lives for. The extra danger created directly by the "improved security" is probably at least as bad. The extra danger created indirectly, for example because more people choose to drive than to fly, is very much greater than the original threat.

wtvanhest 15y ago
The problem with your logic is that the statistics you give are based on there being security. Without it, you have no idea how high the number of successful attacks on planes would be. The chance of dying in a auto accident is still really low. Should we start allowing drinking and driving, no air bags, no speed limits etc. because those laws are annoying to you? I, like everyone else would appreciate less restrictive security, but some level of security has to be present on aircraft. Without it, there would be far more incidents. Especially non terrorist activities like people bringing guns on board for hijackings etc. Security at airports is effective against a wide range of attacks, not just organized terrorism. (I used 2000's number of flights to estimate today's. 20M)

mikeash 15y ago

"Rather be safe than sorry" is not a very useful statement. Any time you step out of the house you're taking some sort of risk. Each person has their own tradeoff between reducing risk and living life, but except for a very few people (who are universally considered to be mentally ill), nobody sets that tradeoff at zero risk and zero life. To imply that you would want to take any measure to make travel safer no matter how small the risk already is makes no sense. If you are that sensitive to risk, you shouldn't be traveling at all.

jerf 15y ago

You got downvoted because you did the statistical equivalent of begging the question. Assuming that you are going to be attacked and killed by terrorists, the odds of you dying via terrorist attack are 100%. P(A|A) = 1. (I know you didn't go to this extreme, but you did the same basic thing.) This is not an interesting result.