A false sense of insecurity

[mdlbear]

Boing Boing: Only traitors try to make us afraid of terrorists

In this mind-blowing, exhaustively researched Cato institute paper by Ohio State University's John Mueller, the case against being afraid of terrorism is laid out in irrefutable logic, backed with credible, documented statistics about terrorism's risks. From the number of fatalities produced by terrorism to the trends in terrorism death to the fact that almost no one has ever died from a military biological agent to the fact that poison gas and dirty bombs in the field do only minor damage -- this paper is the most reassuring and infuriating piece of analysis I've read since September 11th, 2001.

The bottom line is, terrorism doesn't kill many people. Even in Israel, you're four times more likely to die in a car wreck than as a result of a terrorist attack. In the USA, you need to be more worried about lightning strikes than terrorism. The point of terrorism is to create terror, and by cynically convincing us that our very countries are at risk from terrorism, our politicians have delivered utter victory to the terrorists: we are terrified.

(PDF link)

This is something I've been saying for a long time. You're much more likely to be killed in a drive-by shooting than in a terrorist attack.

Until 2001, far fewer Americans were killed in any group- ing of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning, and almost none of those terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself. Even with the Sep- tember 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts.

And, let's face it, folks: nobody is going to hijack a plane and fly it into a building, ever again. Even unarmed, a planeful of enraged passengers is going to be more than a match for a handful of terrorists. The only thing gained by the "increased" airport security is to make people think the politicians are doing something about the terrorist threat, and to make that threat seem greater than it actually is. Their reasons for doing this are left as an exercise for the reader.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Interestingly enough, there is one form of government that cannot fall prey to terrorism: A parlimentary form with a no-confidence vote. Yes, an individual "government" (administration) can and often does fall when it cannot handle the circumstances presented it... but the very idea that incompetence can be quickly replaced gives the nation a resilience no other form of government can match.

We don't have that, and I think it hurts us.

OTOH, there are two governments which do have that form which have dealt very well with terror over the years. There have been many accusations of both of them going over the top, and doubtless at least a few were justified. But one of these governments has succeeded in bringing the terrorists to the bargaining table and forging an uneasy but growing peace... and the other, now that it has become obvious that negotiating has failed, is proceeding to kick the crap out of the terrorists.

Britain and Israel.

And George the Thud? has his desert Vietnam over there burning kerosene and contractor dollars like there's no tomorrow.

*sigh* I could live with everything else being status quo, if only we had a no-confidence vote.

[mdlbear]

The bar for impeachment is much too high. And even that isn't nearly as effective as no confidence.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

It's not, actually, it's just that the House doesn't have the stomach for it. They figured this out back in 1974, that the bar to impeachment is very simple and rather low: Breach of the public trust.

The young Yalie author who researched this and came up with this line of reasoning, which would have been used on Dick Nixon had he stayed, was none other than a dame by the name of Hillary Rhodam.

[mdlbear]

I meant bar in terms of the voting supermajority required. The criterion is simple enough, and Bush passed it long ago. Even if you set your filter for "high crimes and misdemeanors" rather high, the warrantless wiretap business surely qualifies. And various statements on torture before that. And I could go on, but gas is too expensive for me to run the flamethrower as long as I'd like.

So what you're saying is

[capplor.livejournal.com]

that someone can be impeached if and only if the opposing party has a supermajority. That explains Clinton & Andrew Johnson quite nicely. I'm not sure about Nixon; he comes in that "hole" in my knowlege of history, between books and experience.

"I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the Universe" -- Douglas Adams.

Re: So what you're saying is

[mdlbear]

I believe the Democrats controlled Congress at the time -- at least the House; the Senate may have been shifting. But even though the Democrats didn't have a supermajority they were able to hold hearings on Watergate, which is what tipped the balance.

Re: So what you're saying is

[mdlbear]

Also, the Republicans were a lot more pragmatic and less idological than they are now. Basically Clinton Democrats.

[madfilkentist]

I get the impression that many people consider one death from terrorism to be worse than a hundred deaths from other causes. It doesn't make sense to me.

And furthermore

[capplor.livejournal.com]