3 ms·
I think the risk assessment should take into account more than just casualties. The risk of terrorism that scares governments is not necessarily the casualties
by cle 13y ago
I think the risk assessment should take into account more than just casualties.
The risk of terrorism that scares governments is not necessarily the casualties (though that undoubtedly is a factor), but longer-term consequences. For example, repeated terrorist attacks on U.S. soil may deteriorate the confidence of citizens in their government, increase the audacity of terrorists, make the U.S. appear weak, etc.
I don't agree with the U.S.'s response to terrorism, but I'm also not convinced that tallying casualties provides an accurate risk assessment. The political risk of terrorism is much higher than, say, automobile fatalities (or firearms, as digitalengineer pointed out in a sibling reply).
- netcan 13y agoI don't think we disagree much. But the tally of affected people (not just mortalities) is a scale of sorts, even if it must be weighted. 9/11 was significant also becasue it happened in a dense, crowded city and many were affected. But even considering heavily weighted scales terrorism is less of a threat than violent rape by a stranger (itself far less common but more impactful on the public psyche than rape by a non-stranger). People will not lose confidence in the government unless their lives are constantly affected, just like other crimes.