4 ms·
Further, even assuming that number is correct, how many people do you figure die in the average successful terrorist plot? Let's say 100 as a high average. Tha
by burke 12y ago
Further, even assuming that number is correct, how many people do you figure die in the average successful terrorist plot? Let's say 100 as a high average.
That means 300,000,000 Americans (and billions of foreigners) are having their rights violated and wallets emptied via taxation every day to save 5400 lives over the course of 14 years.
Admittedly, it's 55% more likely than getting struck by lightning, but...
- 0xffff2 12y agoAccording to this[1] list, 100 would be vastly over estimating. Even including 9/11, and disregarding all incidents with no fatalities, the average based on the GTD data is about 12.5. If you are willing to concede that 9/11 was a once-in-ever event that is unlikely to be matched, then the number drops below 2. And that's probably still a vast overstatement of the likely fatalities for any given plot, given that 2103 of the 2381 recorded by the GTD have 0 fatalities. [1] http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatalities&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=217&count=100 http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?chart=fatal...
- boyaka 12y agoWhat is up with those fatality numbers? Kinda weird it's exactly 1382 for both towers.
- Forbo 12y agoMy assumption is that they took the total fatalities for the incident, then divided it between the two. So in actuality, the number of fatalities was 2,764, but they divided it between the two sites of attack. That's my assumption though and it could be completely off base.
- boyaka 12y agoAhh yeah makes sense. Both the summaries have the same number stating the combined total of both towers (2603). Best I can figure is 2603 + 88 (Flight 11) + 59 (Flight 175) + 10 hijackers = 2760
- CHY872 12y agoI'm not saying your conclusion isn't wrong, but your argument probably is - largely because there are many costs of terrorism beyond simply loss of life - it's an incredibly efficient way to disrupt a nation. For example, some estimates of the cost of 9/11 (I think including the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan) suggest that each American is out to the tune of $10,000 [0]. If the NSA were able to prevent one 9/11 style event, they'd in one step justify their budget for 300 years (if you ignore Iraq and Afghanistan, it goes down to 75 years, but in many ways at least Afghanistan was very much caused by 9/11). [0] - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-reckoning/cost-graphic.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/08/us/sept-11-rec...
- yesbabyyes 12y agoI'm not saying your conclusion isn't wrong, but your argument probably is I'm not saying that wasn't a bad play of words. You may be willing to give up your liberty, but I, and many with me, are not. Terrorists are trolls; dear people of US and the world, please stop feeding them. The same goes for war mongers of all stripes.
- eyeface 12y agoFair, but there have to be some diminishing returns there. If there had been two 9/11 style events in short succession, would we have gone to twice as many wars?
- burke 12y agoWe didn't really go to war because of 9/11. It was a direct result of existing interventionist foreign policy. 9/11 just escalated an ongoing conflict. You're right, though, the impact of each successive event is less.
- Zigurd 12y ago> it's an incredibly efficient way to disrupt a nation. Only if a nation builds a domestic spy program, and intrusive and expensive domestic security apparatus, and starts multi-trillion dollar wars in places that say Graveyard of Empires right on the label. Who would be such idiots?