I'm sure someone is discounting those cash flows. And if the NPV wasn't >0 I doubt they would keep doing it.

If think its whttp://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=653503#653503orth if someones live could be saved...

sorry... If think its worth if someones live could be saved...

How many dollars per head is worth it? It's also not just death toll it's also about terror. What impact would successful attacks have on society?

Would the amount of deaths/injuries from terrorism exceed the amount of deaths/injuries from automobile accidents? Yet we are not terrified of driving.

The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 in the US was 42,116. I am assuming that the number has not gone down greatly in the last 10 years. So why are we so terrified when terrorists kill less then 10% of this that we spend so much money/inconvenience/suspension of civil liberties to stop them.

So your advocating taking the auto industry approach to safety when it comes to security from terrorism? Their approach is only fix it if the lawsuits would cost more than the repairs.

As far as putting a price on each life saved, we don't know whose lives were saved. What if it was you and your family that were saved because the terrorists would have set off a dirty bomb in the city near you? would you be willing to have the taxpayers foot the bill then?

You cannot evaluate it on a cost per life saved basis when it is really an issue of cost per person secured, whtehr their life would have been at risk or not. And on that order, we are less than $100 per person per year. I think that's actually quite a bargain. In terms of GDP, we are spending about 1/4th of a percent - also quite a bargain.

Umm.. I thought we were past this particular nasty brand of utilitarianism.

I agree... the threat of dying in a terrorist attack is nil. But if we consciously do nothing to prevent them to "save money" .... what are you going to say to the families of those who *will* die?

Believe me, I sympathize with how you feel joey1 but... it's just fucked up not to. It would also be fucked up to reduce security to all but a token check and assure people that it's all under control when it's not.

Draug +1

Most crashes are not deliberate attacks. It's one thing knowing someone can be careless, it's another knowing people are trying to kill you. If we had no increased security the death toll in a country this size could easly excede 1,000 a year. Not allways in large single attacks but in many small attacks. This is not to say all security checks are rational or effective. We do need to be more selective than we've been sometimes. Also how many crimes have been prevented by increased security, how many hospitals not bombed, or bridges still intact? Would we be just rebuilding places that have been bombed?

I understand all that libertarian talk about Ben Franklin's quote about liberty and security etc. The idea isn't totally wrongheaded.

But still. Security is one of humanity's basic needs. On the hierarchy of needs, safety comes waayy before self-actualization, which is what liberty would fall under.

So there is a balance to be found yes, but seriously..... who cares about getting patted down at the airport? Put it in perspective. There is no chance for abuse here. The worst that could happen is maybe some fuckface who works at the TSA who enjoys feeling people up.

But seriously.... like I said... who *really* gives a shit if some stranger whose *job it is* to pat people down pats you down? And the cost? Really? There are much less important programs in place atm.

Like defence. God damn. What a racket. I promise we can still have the biggest army in the world and shave many billions off the defence budget.

ahh you british bastards got me to spell defense with a c

Don't you know that the defense budget includes all that top secret research on the Area 51 alien saucers? That's where the money is going. and you'll be glad, too, when the invasion starts.

:-)

Wait, what? You *know* about that?? Fuck, Draug, if you do you should know better than to fucking *blab* about it - now you're going to get a visit from your friendly neighborhood MIB...

I think you're misunderstanding utilitarianism Thucy. If more lives were saved by spending the money currently used for security elsewhere, then that would clearly be the right thing to do. Unfortunately, if money were saved on protecting against terrorism, it's not a foregone conclusion it would be spent on anything constructive like health (especially considering the US only just got a public health service).

oh though I agree with you about defence, huge military budgets are so stupid!

"Is fighting terrorism with extra security good value for money?"

Nope.

Terrorism is not a major threat to ordinary people's lives. People are just paranoid about it. The chances of anyone reading this thread being killed or injured in a terrorist attack in the next 5 years are very, very slim indeed. You have much more chance of winning the lottery.

@Jamie - tell that to the people in the twin towers of the WTC the morning of September 11, 2001. I used to live very close to the Fernald Nuclear Facility that produced weapons grade nuclear material. Now I live even closer to one of the busiest international airports in America (32nd in the US and 5th in the midwest according to wikipedia). I ran the numbers based on the annual Homeland Security budget and we spend about $25 per person per year on security. That's about $.50 a week each. Again, I reiterate my earlier statement that the price is a very small price to pay.

On their own ladders, peanut allergies, and driving a car each kill exponetially as many americans as terrorists.

OMG, if terrorists step up their game they could kill almost as many people as LADDERS!!! DEAR GOD!, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

I'm not too upset about the money spent on it, its all imaginary anyway,. what upsets me is the growing culture of fear, surveillance, xenophobia, hawkishness, and control.
Can anyone name a totalitarian government who ceaselessly screamed about the danger of terrorists? Hitler, stalin, mussolini, pol-pot etc.
sure claiming that terrorists are a threat (they are after all) doesnt equal an increasingly oppressive government, but things like patriot act, military commisions act, etc. do.

totalitarian government who *DIDNT* ceaselessly *scream about....

well jamie, i agree, it is very very very very low. i am afraid of it at all.

however you must acknowledge that this is at least partly because we take security measures.

i'm not really talking about not letting somebody bring a knife onto a plane. i have just as much chance of dying in a school shooting, even without the detectors.

what i am talking about is checking what and who comes into this country and what they have on them.

because if you let them bring in the shit they need to blow up baltimore.... well then let's just say that fucking sucks.

so that's what i'm talking about. if we just dismantled our security systems, your chance of dying in a terrorist attack would increase dramatically. it wouldn't be long before you know somebody who was involved in one. the fact is that there are terrorists out there and they *want* to get in, they just get foiled most of the time.

and i agree, sic, that sliding that direction is a bad thing indeed. but of course that doesnt mean we should not have our security lol. what you describe is as much a rhetoric problem as anything, with all the politicians freaking out about it. this is misplaced.


as to the money spent on such things: yes, you could take the money, spend it elsewhere, and save more lives.

however, a vastly larger number of people would start dying from terrorists, that's the first effect. once the terrorists know there is no security anymore, they'll give it all they've got. hearing about suicide bombers would become routine.

but, you know, you used the billions to help people not starve. trust me, i am ALL for that, but still..... it's a little fucked up. why not save people from starvation with other money, money that's not protecting people from dying also?

can you save more people per dollar by feeding them? yeah probably, that doesn't mean we should *only* do that. we also spend LOTS of money trying to cure cancer.

is cancer-cure research really the best value for money? couldn't we just spend the money on that elsewhere and save far more people from lack of drinking water etc etc etc?

Yes. Yes. the answer is yes, but it does not mean we should. we should get the money for that sort of thing from a program that doesn't save *anyone's* life.

such as all that economic tripe. instead of QE, let's lift people out of poverty. MUCH more reasonable suggestion.

(full disclosure: my degree focuses on eliminating hunger)

We could just stop bombing their homes. They would probably 'hate our freedom' a lot less.

oh yes. i agree very very very much lol.

but i was thinking in an "all other things being equal" mindset

How many homes were bombed on Sept 10, 2001? Isolationism is no guarantee of security

What we need isnt a bigger security budget, it's less.
Less defense spending means our foreign policy will become less imperilaistic.

I highly reccomend everyone here watch 'the power of nightmares' by adam curtis

It is kinda sad for me that such a thread was even posted.

I live in a country with constant terror attacks, and even here way more people die from car accidents than terror attacks.

But, lets recall what is terrorism. Terrorism is the act of bringing terror into the lives of citizens, in order to interrupt with their daily life activities, and to undermine under the accepted social order and practice. Terrorists are not serial killers, they are not looking to kill people just because they feel like it - they want to bring a change, they want to change the world by force in order to suit better to their views. Terrorists don't want to kill you - they want to change the way you live, the way you think, they way you eat, the way you (don't) vote, the way your wife dresses and the way your son and daughter marries.

Car accidents have no agenda. Terrorists do. Once you stop your defense against terrorism, the whole society will begin to change. Trust me, I know. I live in such a country, where there is a security guard in every school, every university and any other public institution - including malls, big supermarkets, ACE, Home Center, Office Depot and every store that is bigger than your local grocery shop.

Naturally the next question is where do you live?

If I tell you, I'll have to kill you.

"...that doesnt mean we should not have our security lol."

In ireland all our security is a lol :p

@stratagos : "How many homes were bombed on Sept 10, 2001? Isolationism is no guarantee of security " The US was not an isolationist country on sept 10th 2001, militrary aid to Israel - 1.9 Billion, Egypt 1.2 Billion, (and that's excluding other dev elopment aid)

The US has a long history of involvement with middle eastern reigmes which includes supporting allies who will sell oil at the expense of the population who are repressed by these regimes.

The arguement has been made that if they didn't do this Islamic regimes would take over and anti-US governments would be democratically elected. So US policy makes a certain amount of sense, but it does NOT make the US isolationist!

@Baskineli: i live in a country where terrorism had it's place, where terrorists were incorporated into the democratic system, negotiated with until the felt they had the ability to change the system without resorting to physical violence.

That democracy has failed in some places to enfranchise the population is true, however that doesn't mean fighting terrorists with more security measures is successful. I imagine you're talking about Israel, And I imagine everyone knows i'm tlaking about Ireland - there are places in Europe where militants strive for freedom agaisnt the wishes of a majority.

However this is NOT what's being discussed, on the 11th of September 2001 militant hijackers from outside a state essentially invaded.
It's not about a small group within a nation, and providing security to protect against them. (as in Ireland of th Basque region of Spain) it's about enfranchising people in foreign countries - making them feel like they have the power to control their own lives, national resouces, and that they have a place within the international community.

The fact is our international community is NOT made up of equal nations. Some nations exert more power than others, some influence the affairs of others, and this is how countries have always interacted with each other so it is no surprise.

However something has changed in the world. It's called globalisation, but it means travel and communication is easier, people are more connected, so a small group of people in one country CAN create an international incident which results in national militrary forces sweeping acros continents.

We need to build a democratic framework for the international community to actually moderate the forces at work and allow people have a voice. The UN failed in it's duty to prevent this terrorist action because the US funds most of it's operation and thus member nations are not able/willing to oppose the US (for risk of losing vital funding which DOES go to good work, such as the prevention of the spread of aids - 0 in 2001, but 1.9 billion in 2006)

I think the arguement could be made that the US should spend more moeny on saving lives from starvation than on militrary aid, but far more important is building functional international organisations which don't disenfranchise or alienate entire populations...

*phew* In my next lecture i'll explain just how to do that...

oh that last line was sarcasm... i'll just leave you with the source of my figures:

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

and this little snippet: These 2 countries receive one-third of the total aid, the majority of which pays for armaments. Yet, neither is a "developing" country. One-third of ALL US AID goes to Israel and Egypt.

Lets assume that mr A wants to kill mr B; Mr A has killed before and has told Mr B he is gunning for him. Unfortunately we don't know the idenity of Mr A or Mr B. We now have a choice, protect everyone in the world (so that Mr B is protected) or educate everyone in the world so that Mr A no longer wants to kill Mr B. The cheapest option is education without a shadow of a doubt, the problem is until everyone is educated, Mr B is still vunerable, so we have to protect him during the educational process. I think we have dstrorted this so that we protect so much that their is no money left to educate.

@ Strategos - "How many homes were bombed on Sept 10, 2001? Isolationism is no guarantee of security"

That statement seems to confuse events - those that initiate movements and those that maintain them.

It was in direct response to the thesis that if we took our ball and went home we would have nothing to fear - and, with all due respect to Sic and the consistent way he practices what he preaches - there isn't a thing I can say that is going to influence what and how he thinks, so I don't exactly feel shame in an occasional snarky comment.

It does lower the quality of debate for an observer like myself though. Have a thought.

Fair, you did not claim the US was isolationist in early 2001. How and ever, the US is a major world player and how it fit's into this place in the world is NEVER going to please everyone.

You could give cut trade tariff's with China and piss off the Japanese. You could bomb Somalia and piss off Somalians. You could finance loans to South America and be resented for negative influence on South American economies.

The failure of our system doesn't merit returning to a hunter+gatherer society, but neither does it mean the system shouldn't be completely overhauled.

Grab the Brazilian, Japanese, and Indian ambassadors, along with China, Russia and the EU and agree to dismantle the UN and build somehting better. They will pull the rest of the world along with them.