Hacker News Reader

Comment by bordercases | Hacker News Reader

The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, that one should not worry about one's enemies simply because they're unlikely to do as much damage as other problems, is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing; that because the odds are low, no preventative action should be taken because everything will be OK.

That seems to be a poor stance to take against one's adversaries. It puts them in a better position over you that improves the likelihood of another attack occurring. The current rate is associated with our current amount of "security". Surely lowering the vigilance and thus lowering the security would just make matters worse!

View on HN

> is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing

When "doing something" is worse than "doing nothing", then yes we should do nothing. Off the top of my head, the things we've done because of 9/11:

* Create DHS

* Begin TSA security theater

* Start illegal NSA metadata collection program

* Afghanistan + Iraq ("not related", but had support from misinformed public) wars.

A good thing I can think of: more secure cockpit doors. On balance, yeah, I wish we had done nothing after 9/11. On the other hand it's not impossible for good actions as a result, but we have a pretty bad track record of it.

The importance of putting the _actual_ consequences in perspective is to let you at least consider that maybe we don't have to do anything sometimes. It's like the 80/20 rule or anything with diminishing marginal returns: to actually achieve flat out 100% safety and security is going to be an extremely expensive endeavor both in monetary terms and in how our society and ideals have to change.

> When "doing something" is worse than "doing nothing", then yes we should do nothing. Off the top of my head, the things we've done because of 9/11:

Your comment presents a false dichotomy between the particular responses they took and doing nothing.

It ignores the possibilities of other courses of action, by implying that if the particular responses they took were poor then the best option therefore must be to do nothing.

It's not a false dichotomy when every single thing people propose to do is like that - wastes money and/or kills innocent people.

BTW. GP forgot to add - terrorizing Pakistan. US drone strikes themselves killed about as many civilians as 9/11 attacks.

The person I was replying to was talking about things that were actually done not every possible option, so it was a false dichotomy.

I dispute your claim that every possible option other than doing nothing would be worse than doing nothing. What's your justification for that claim?

Not to mention destabilize an entire region and create a brand new generation that wants to see us destroyed. Our best course now is to start doing nothing.

The idea behind many of those actions may have been to make people feel safe. Part of leadership is addressing peoples' concerns and to maintaining regular order. I don't think the goal is 100% safety and security. I think it was more along the lines of "We see and understand that you're worried about terrorism. Look at all the things we're doing to deal with that problem". And if it makes people feel better...it worked.

Now sure, some people will look at pages of facts and figures about death statistics. But a lot of people will think "I had to wait in line for a long time at the airport while they did security stuff, so I must be safe." And that's the job of government, to deal with problems that are on the minds of citizens.

> The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, (...) is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing;

That's exactly what they're supposed to do, because it is the best course of action against terrorism. Not because "ignoring your enemy" is wise, but because "terrorism" is the name we give to the form of attack that weaponizes you doing something - out of fear or anger. There is no value to the enemy in blowing up a bus. Killing a bunch of civilians is an effort wasted. But, if their deaths can get you to change your policies - start a war, or institute a police state, or something - then the attack has achieved its purpose.

TL;DR: remember that in terrorist attacks, deaths are just collateral damage - means to an end.

We by that I mean in the west, only see a small fraction of this particular terrorism. People in-situ see much more and are escaping and risking their lives to escape because it's so devastating.

Doing nothing would mean leaving the whole country to go down the drain with multiple generations scarred by war, atrocities, tribalism, lawlessness, etc. That's why advanced countries typically go in and try to tamp things out, sometimes the results are less than desirable, but doing nothing surely seals their fate --as it does to many countries in Africa (where international African forces nominally are in charge, but typically do little, are ineffective, corrupt)

Yes, my response was about terrorism in the West. What happens in the East is closer to a civil war.

If you by "in the West" you mean domestic western terrorism... maybe. Still, in the US the FBI and other gov't agencies monitor those orgs because of the potential to escalate into an undesirable state.

If you mean middle eastern terrorism jumping over into the west, I think it's fair to say that if they could, they would strike, but the threat has been managed well with the security precautions in place, but that's not to say they aren't trying to overcome their shortcomings.

Isn't death collateral damage in just about every conflict? People usually just want power.

True, but in a typical conflict you attack enemy warriors and infrastructure in order to deny them the power to do the same to you. Since you can't hope to convince them to not attack you, you have to kill them. If a general orders you to strike a facility, their direct goal is to have that facility - and its contribution to the enemy war effort - eliminated. Terrorism, on the other hand, is about provoking the enemy into action. Victims are completely unrelated to the goals attackers may have.

In my opinion it is not about doing nothing, it all boils down to the proportion of the reaction. An act of terrorism that kills hundreds of people, should not be reciprocated with an all out offensive on a whole region. Not only because that by itself is an act of terrorism; since most of the victims are usually innocent civilians, but because it cause the fear and anger that leads to the creation of these groups in the first place.

Just looking at history, you realize that all these groups labeled as terrorists, and I say labeled because many others go by under the radar, such as the KKK, all spawned from conflicted area where the political powers were sabotaging the stability. Either through corrupt governments or international mingling and occupation.

Declaring the associates of some dead spree killers your enemies is not an especially empowering position (but perhaps required in case of nationalist ideology). What I see are some nasty folks overseas who I'd rather wield less influence, and who I'd rather see get much less free PR from the media.

I don't think that's what it's saying. When people are scared out of their minds they tend to respond reflexively rather than rationally, and in the case of terrorism they tend to do things that make things worse (confer legitimacy on the "enemy," give them the war they want, invade Iraq) or things that are totally tangential or even orthogonal to the problem (warrantless domestic wiretapping and mass collection of phone data; giving law enforcement tools and training brutally put down protests; invade Iraq). The author just wants us to respond to terrorism in a rational state of mind, when we at least have a chance of doing things that make the problem better, not worse.

> The issue I take with the message behind these statistics, that one should not worry about one's enemies simply because they're unlikely to do as much damage as other problems, is that they make it seem like the best course is to do nothing; that because the odds are low, no preventative action should be taken because everything will be OK.

There is no message and the article never draws any conclusions so it's up to the reader to decide what the data proves. It would be silly to believe that this is somehow trying to excuse terrorism, it's like letting a murderer go because car accidents killed more than he did that year.

I don't think it's binary choice. The statistics call into question if we should ever decide to launch a full scale invasion due to the threat of terrorism, but isn't arguing against ending safety measures currently in place.

Another way to put it is if the threat of terrorism is so low, should we direct investment into terrorism versus other initiatives? If we were a start-up we'd determine the most efficient way to deploy capital to have the maximum lives saved.

Something the article ignores is really taking into account efficiency of preventative measures and money spent on those measures.

Right, it's like saying, not many people die from salmonella, people die from so many other things, let's stop worrying about salmonella.

No, it's like saying - how about not kicking out all shop clerks from the country because salmonella is related to food, and how about not starting a war with another country over it?

...that one should not worry about one's enemies...

Calling terrorists "enemies" is giving them way too much credit. The USSR was an enemy of the USA. Terrorists are a highly vocal criminal nuisance by comparison. Terror only works if you are terrorized.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com