Conservative Libertarian Outpost

Terrified about terrorism

The story about British-born Islamic terrorists who allegedly planned
to detonate bombs on transatlantic flights is dominating the headlines,
so it’s easy to forget how miniscule the odds are that you will ever
become the victim of terrorism.

In fact, the likelihood that you’ll be killed by a terrorist is no
greater than the likelihood that you’ll die from a peanut allergy.

With the renewed hysteria about terrorism, it’s a perfect time to dust
off the Fall 2004 issue of Regulation magazine, published by the Cato
Institute. It featured an article entitled “A False Sense of
Insecurity?”

In it, John Mueller (a professor of National Security Studies at Ohio
State University) pointed out: “For all the attention it evokes…the
likelihood that any individual will become a victim [of terrorism] in
most places is microscopic.”

How microscopic? “Even with the September 11 attacks included in the
count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since
the late 1960s…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,” he wrote.

Wait a second: Isn’t terrorism the #1 danger facing the nation?

That’s certainly what politicians would have you believe. They’re
constantly giving dire speeches, issuing color-coded alerts, and making
demands for more government programs and more infringements of civil
liberties to “fight terrorism.”

But maybe there’s another reason why politicians respond so franticly
to the real and imagined dangers of terrorism.

In his 2003 book The Progress Paradox, Gregg Easterbrook noted bluntly,
“Most politicians prefer bad news to good.”

Politicians “drastically” exaggerate “all negative trends while denying
all positive developments” in hopes of getting into office or remaining
in power, he wrote. There are “self-serving reasons” why you so
frequently see “politicians talking as pessimistically as possible.”

That could explain why politicians are waging a “War On Terror” — but
no “War On Allergic Reactions to Peanuts.” Being seen as tough on
terror can get politicians re-elected. Being tough on peanuts won’t.

Of course, citing the long odds of being killed by terrorism isn’t
meant to diminish the real pain and suffering that terrorists have
caused, or to minimize the tragedy of those who have died at their
hands. The suffering is real, and danger from terrorism certainly
exists.

As Mueller wrote in Regulation: “Efforts to confront terrorism and
reduce its incidence and destructiveness are justified. But hysteria is
hardly required.”

In fact, he continued, “It seems sensible to suggest that part of this
reaction [to terrorism] should include an effort by politicians,
officials, and the media to inform the public reasonably and
realistically about the terrorist context instead of playing into the
hands of terrorists by frightening the public.”

Mueller is right.

Want to strike a real blow against terrorism? Know the odds. Understand
the dangers. And refuse to be terrified.

Source: Regulation (Fall 2004)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n3/v27n3.html

While I agree with this article it should be pointed out that one set of issues deals with the power of mother nature, about which little if anything can be done. The other is clearly man made, about which much can be done.

This entry was posted on August 17, 2006 at 10:53 and is filed under Warfare. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.