The Relative Cost of Terrorism:
Since 9/11 we have all been told that fighting terrorism is of paramount importance and that we must be willing to make sacrifices to keep America safe. Having said that, I doubt it. It is not clear in any way that the cost of terrorism is one that is extraordinarily high or one that demands extraordinary sacrifice.
America lost some 3000 plus citizens on 9/11 due to terrorist violence. While I think that the loss of any life is horrible, loss of life is something we accept on a daily basis and risk is a part of life. If we were opposed to accepting any optional risk, we would stay at home, hide in our basements, and wear padded clothing. We don't. We balance risks and potential deaths due to risk everyday. With that fact in mind, I will point out that the risk of death due to terrorist violence is still a very small risk compared to other activities that have a risk which we willingly and gladly accept:
Americans accept several thousand deaths EVERY WEEK due to lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427 ).
Americans accept deaths due to automobile accidents ranging from 30 to 40 thousand per year: several thousand per month (http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html ).
If these fatality levels were not acceptable, we would see a "War on Smoking" or a "War on Careless Driving". We don't see such activity. That is, we have thousands dead every week from smoking, thousands dead every month due to automobile accidents and we just accept it as part of our way of life. Even if we had a few thousand dead due to a 9/11- type terrorist event each and every year, it still wouldn't rise to the threat-level of these other "acceptable" risks. So then, why change our way of life to address the lesser risk of terrorism if we won't do so to address a multitude of greater risks? If our leaders won't ask smokers to stamp out their butts to save several thousand lives a week, how does it make sense to ask everyone to accept higher costs (truncations of their civil or, human rights) to get a much lower return (less than 2% of that many lives)??
The people claiming that Terrorism is "The" issue of our day aren’t doing very much cost-benefit analysis…
At best, the response to terrorism is illogical. If the goal is to protect American lives, then we should be going after the greatest threats to American lives first and spending should be proportionate to the risk presented. I don't see anyone spending billions of dollars and putting American Marines in harm's way to stop smoking or to erect signs at hazardous railroad crossings. We owe it to ourselves to realize that the scariest threats, the ones which evoke the most visceral responses, are not necessarily the most important and significant ones. I think the current response is being defined by pure knee-jerk reactionism and our national safety should be based on more circumspect thinking and use of resources.
America lost some 3000 plus citizens on 9/11 due to terrorist violence. While I think that the loss of any life is horrible, loss of life is something we accept on a daily basis and risk is a part of life. If we were opposed to accepting any optional risk, we would stay at home, hide in our basements, and wear padded clothing. We don't. We balance risks and potential deaths due to risk everyday. With that fact in mind, I will point out that the risk of death due to terrorist violence is still a very small risk compared to other activities that have a risk which we willingly and gladly accept:
Americans accept several thousand deaths EVERY WEEK due to lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35427 ).
Americans accept deaths due to automobile accidents ranging from 30 to 40 thousand per year: several thousand per month (http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html ).
If these fatality levels were not acceptable, we would see a "War on Smoking" or a "War on Careless Driving". We don't see such activity. That is, we have thousands dead every week from smoking, thousands dead every month due to automobile accidents and we just accept it as part of our way of life. Even if we had a few thousand dead due to a 9/11- type terrorist event each and every year, it still wouldn't rise to the threat-level of these other "acceptable" risks. So then, why change our way of life to address the lesser risk of terrorism if we won't do so to address a multitude of greater risks? If our leaders won't ask smokers to stamp out their butts to save several thousand lives a week, how does it make sense to ask everyone to accept higher costs (truncations of their civil or, human rights) to get a much lower return (less than 2% of that many lives)??
The people claiming that Terrorism is "The" issue of our day aren’t doing very much cost-benefit analysis…
At best, the response to terrorism is illogical. If the goal is to protect American lives, then we should be going after the greatest threats to American lives first and spending should be proportionate to the risk presented. I don't see anyone spending billions of dollars and putting American Marines in harm's way to stop smoking or to erect signs at hazardous railroad crossings. We owe it to ourselves to realize that the scariest threats, the ones which evoke the most visceral responses, are not necessarily the most important and significant ones. I think the current response is being defined by pure knee-jerk reactionism and our national safety should be based on more circumspect thinking and use of resources.
posted by Minotaur at 1:53 PM
1 Comments:
Absolutely!
Post a Comment
<< Home