death
We’re all going to die!!!!!!!1
Thursday, August 17, 2006 | Skip to Comments
I read a fascinating article from 2004 by John Mueller entitled A False Sense Of Insecurity. In the article, Professor Mueller smacks the reader about the head reminding them that the sole purpose of terrorism is, well, terror. The recently foiled bomb plot in the UK is an excellent example of how a real threat that endangered, at most, several thousand lives rippled outward to affect the lives of tens of thousands more. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ban carry-on liquids on plane flights, but is it really best to set such policies in reaction to a single threat that may-or-may-not have ever succeeded? Shouldn’t we control the agenda and stand by the security policies already in place? By suddenly changing policy, do we not begin to sow feelings of doubt and mistrust in our security officials? The thought is planted: if liquids are a credible threat and our security officials overlooked them, what else have they missed? How safe is air travel? Are our civil rights too expansive — should we allow them to be further curtailed to enhance our safety? Am I really in constant jeopardy when I travel?
And, with that thought, a victory is scored for the terrorists.
It’s similar to the case of Richard Reid. After Reid was discovered to have explosives hidden in his shoes in 2001, it became common practice in our airports for passengers to remove their shoes and have them scanned in the X-ray machines for explosives. I am not questioning whether airport security should have such a policy but, with the recent revelation that X-ray machines don’t detect explosives in shoes, I do question the merit of introducing such a policy in reaction to a single incident. I understand that the intent of the policy was to reassure air travelers of their safety, but the long-term ramification of shifting security measures after the revelation of an isolated security threat seems to be more detrimental to our sense of safety than any measure of actual safety gained by such a shift (which appears to be none).
A recent observation I read with regard to the ban on liquids was revealing: How is safety increased by dumping containers full of potentially lethal liquid explosives into large garbage containers in proximity to thousands of people if a savvy terrorist could just detonate such a container at the terminal itself? Just as Schwarzenegger sending the National Guard California’s airports didn’t actually do anything to increase security at those terminals, it’s fairly clear that removing liquids from airplanes as currently implemented isn’t very sound security policy either. Obviously, it is believed that taking action and showing strength — no matter how illogically such steps are taken — has greater psychological benefit for the public then standing by our current security practices which were actually successful at stopping the real terrorist threat.
Maybe it’s just me, but I take greater comfort in knowing that UK police were able to successfully stop a potential terrorist plot before it was implemented than I do from banning liquids on airplanes. Knowing that the police were successful makes me feel more secure; thinking that terrorists are able to dream-up ways that beat our current security measures, as this sudden ban implies, makes me feel less secure.
I’m not going to get into the potential implications that the spread of fear has upon our own society — for that I suggest that you go watch V For Vendetta. I will, however, return to the central point Professor Mueller makes in his 2004 paper — statistically, terrorism just isn’t that big of a deal. Yes, the cold, bony finger of Death is pointing at at each one of us, but the gruesome faint that awaits us is likely far more mundane than a that implied by the level of attention and effort that we put towards stopping terrorism.
Make no mistake, I believe we should make every reasonable effort to stop terrorist attacks. But I also think we should keep such attacks in perspective and not let the terrorists achieve their primary goal: spreading terror.
In that spirit, I end this article with a list of the most likely ways that we will all die. Each is terrible and tragic in its own way, and each is far more probable than dying in an terrorist attack. So, instead of worrying about whether your next plane flight will be hijacked, you should probably concern yourself with a more relevant threat like, say, dying from accidental electrocution or walking (it kills one out of every 626 people!). If you are curious about the veracity of this list, you’ll be happy to know that it was culled from a webpage assembled by the United States National Safety Council and National Geographic. Enjoy.
Odds Of Dying - Heart Disease
- 1-in-5
- Cancer
- 1-in-7
- Stroke
- 1-in-24
- Motor Vehicle Accident
- 1-in-84
- Accidental Poisoning
- 1-in-193
- Falling
- 1-in-218
- Firearm Assault
- 1-in-314
- Pedestrian Accident
- 1-in-626
- Drowning
- 1-in-1,008
- Fire Or Smoke
- 1-in-1,113
- Assault By Sharp Object
- 1-in-1,829
- Air/Space Accident
- 1-in-5,051
- Accidental Electrocution
- 1-in-9,968
- Hot Weather
- 1-in-13,729
- Contact With Venomous Animal or Plant
- 1-in-39,873
- Lightning
- 1-in-79,746
- Earthquake
- 1-in-117,127
- Attack By Dog
- 1-in-117,127
- Flood
- 1-in-144,156
- Operations Of War
- 1-in-267,719
- Fireworks Discharge
- 1-in-340,773
- Terrorist Attack
- Very, very small
Tags: death, opinion, policy, safety, terrorism