For those who are interested in the big picture, the September issue of The Atlantic has in interesting article: "Is America Any Safer?".


The answer seems to be that we have made significant progress in some areas, but in other areas we still have a very long way to go. As always, our perception of the threats is not always consistent with the actual threats. Finding the right balance between cost, effectiveness, and civil liberties is a huge challenge. And as always, the dreaded "P" word plays a huge role.

A most thoughtful article - Thank you, AKSAR!

Well the article does really only focus on terrorism. Safer or saferty can be a rather broad term.

In the sense of cost effectiveness, anti-terrorisme ranks rather low in the dollar/QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) ratio. Spend the same money on one of the top 10 death causes and you are pretty much garanteed a much better return in QULY's per dollar.

The perception of the terrorisme danger is way too high compared to the actual amount of death and damage terrorisme is causing.

Very interesting article, AKSAR, thanks!

No doubt we are safer from some avenues of attack, as vulnerable as ever from others and perhaps more vulnerable than ever from some (cyber-terrorism).

There is another dimension to terrorism and that is the economic fallout from a large-scale attack. Recall that the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq were shut down on 9/11 and did not reopen until 9/17 -- the longest shutdown since 1933. Stock markets around the world closed on the fear of more attacks. On 9/17, the Dow dropped over 7% and by the end of the week had fallen nearly 1400 points. In that first week that the markets were reopened, nearly $1.5 trillion in economic value was lost. Insurance firms paid out $40 billion in 9/11-related claims. NYC's GDP declined $30b through 2002. Thousands of small businesses in NYC were affected, badly. The Fed hastily took a number of unprecedented steps to ensure liquidity of the financial system, some of which (super low interest rates) still reverb.

Terrorism can affect people in a number of ruinous ways.


.

For that matter, what about "natural" disasters and disturbances. They pose an eternal threat to safety and well being. Tornadoes, wild fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and other phenomena can mess up our lives just as thoroughly as any insidious terrorist inspired plot.

We tend to react rather than proact to all of these events as well.

Well the whole point of the article is about the money and effort expended as a result of 9/11, so yes the article does focus on terrorism.

We would probably all agree that not enough effort/money is put into preparation for more common everyday disasters such as wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, or just getting lost in the woods. After all that is what draws many of us to ETS.

However, it is worth noting that many of the preparations for terrorist attacks also help us prepare for more ordinary calamities. For example, the article mentions how a terrorist inspired mass casualty exercise helped Boston hospitals prepare for what happened during the Boston Marathon bombings. The lessons learned from that mass casualty exercise would also help in case of any other (non terrorist) mass casualty event such as an earthquake or accidental explosion due to a train wreck.

For me the point is that while we have made some progress, in some areas we are still have a long way to go. While some money has been well spent, a lot has been wasted. Let's focus on what we can improve, and try to avoid mistakes of the past.