| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| A mathematical study of terrorist attacks need not leave us fearing the worst |
| 2005-02-20 |
| I thought this was sufficiently interesting to post in its entirety. BTW, the headline doesn't make sense to me. Statistically speaking, it seems that things can only get worse. A study of the statistics of global terrorism concludes that attacks will become more severe in the future, and that an attack that kills as many people as the destruction of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 is likely within the next seven years. It all sounds very depressing and seems to imply, depending on your viewpoint, either that the 'war on terror' is essential or that it is futile. But can we really assert these things based on statistics alone? Computer scientists Aaron Clauset and Maxwell Young of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, have analysed the data on terrorist attacks compiled by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism in Oklahoma City. They say the numbers follow a 'power-law' relationship. A graph of the number of attacks n plotted against their severity x (in terms of injuries and/or fatalities) reveals that n is roughly proportional to x -1.85. Put simply, this means that the frequency of attacks decreases as their size increases - which is what you'd expect - but also that this relationship holds for events ranging from those that injured or killed just a few people to those that, like the Nairobi car bomb in August 1998, produced over 5000 casualties. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #16 #14--Andrea, Do you know of what you speak? Most military bases that see the heaviest use are largely empty space. Lots of room between buildings. Very old buildings. The bases that should be closed are those which are under-utilised and so close in urban-suburban area that live-fire has become a serious liability issue. And screw local economies. Making the remaining bases cover all the terriroty would be ridiculously easy, but would take thoughtful planning and foresight, things lacking in the budgetary process over the past 200 years. The remaining bases will need updates . . . like replacing barracks that were built in WWII. Houses that have been in constant use and abuse at least that long. Without having to maintain more bases than are needed we can free up cash that can be used for better things. |
| Posted by: Jame Retief 2005-02-21 12:05:34 AM |
| #15 # 15 phil_b yes and no. you are correct in saying that there is an underlying dynamic and arresting/killing terrorist aint gonna work. I don't know either if democratization is going to work. I have always felt that the world will never achieve homeostasis. Andrea |
| Posted by: Andrea Jackson 2005-02-20 5:52:05 PM |
| #14 as with most things societal, mathematics can only outline past trends. It cannot predict the future. I beg to differ. It can and does predict the future. Whether that future eventuates depends on whether the underlying dynamic that results in the phenomena changes. This is a fundamental issue about terrorism and goes to the heart of how to deal with it. If terrorism was a series of unconnected events then the law enforcement model makes sense, i.e. more law enforcement will manage the problem. But the data clearly shows there is an underlying dynamic and arresting/killing terrorists aint gonna work. I don't know if regime change/democratization is going to work either but the evidence says this is the type of solution required. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-20 4:04:49 PM |
| #13 # 7 Math and stat's keep track of the past event's- not a good way to determine the future. Associated Press- More military Bases in the U.S. to be Closed. Washington- safe for a decade, military bases in the United States face an uncertain future. The Pentagon plans to shut down or scale back some of the 425 facilities, the first such effort to save money in 10 years. The downsizing is part of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's long-term transformation of the Cold-War-era military. The Pentagon chief argues that closing or consolidating stateside facilities could save $ 7 billion annually and that the money would be better spent improving fighting capabilities amid threats from terrorists. "It's a good example of good policy and good politics not fitting in the same room together", said Christopher Hellman, an analyst with the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington". I ask ~~ Why is the United States military increasing it's recruitment effort's??(now have recruitment center's open on Sunday). Why are we building 1st class submarines (Jimmy Carter). Where are our soldier's going to train, work, stay/live etc. DOES THE LEFT HAND KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT HAND IS DOING? Andrea Jackson |
| Posted by: Andrea Jackson 2005-02-20 2:22:28 PM |
| #12 I knew this was gonna happen, I just can't tell you until Adlai is elected. |
| Posted by: Hari S 2005-02-20 1:11:36 PM |
| #11 Carefull,Spot.The Mule will be looking for you.(I assume you were referencing Asimov's Foundation series). |
| Posted by: raptor 2005-02-20 12:53:54 PM |
| #10 "But it is worth bearing in mind that several apparent power-law statistics in social phenomena have turned out, on closer inspection, to have natural cut-off points that preclude very large events" I wonder if folks said something along the same lines about revolution in Russia in 1917 and about Germany during the rise to power of the Nazi in the 1930s. Both did have "natural cut off points" so to speak, but consider the huge amount damage done before then. |
| Posted by: Rifle308 2005-02-20 11:42:12 AM |
| #9 What about our side of the us versus them relationship? If you took the growth in the lethality of US conventional weapons from 1980 to 2005 and projected it over the next 25 years, by 2030 one Marine battalion with air cover will be able to fight its way from Morocco to Pyongyang successfully and with minimal casualties. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-02-20 10:46:14 AM |
| #8 When I need Power-law I retain Sq. Cingold. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-02-20 10:28:30 AM |
| #7 Who was the author, Hari Seldon? Seriously, a statistical relationship does not mean a cause and effect relationship. |
| Posted by: Spot 2005-02-20 8:59:37 AM |
| #6 Unfortunately, as with most things societal, mathematics can only outline past trends. It cannot predict the future. What of the major attacks that are foiled by good work or just plain dumb luck? Or even better, by remorseful jihadi's? The stats are meaningless in a future tense. |
| Posted by: Jame Retief 2005-02-20 8:02:26 AM |
| #5 Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. |
| Posted by: Legal Disclaimer 2005-02-20 3:32:04 AM |
| #4 I think ITSY wrote this paper...Say doom! |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-02-20 3:30:40 AM |
| #3 It was a bit tedious, but I got through it. The first sentence was the gem. Made you really want to wade into the rest: Statistically speaking, it seems that things can only get worse. LOL! |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-02-20 3:28:09 AM |
| #2 Tipper, IMO the 'natural' in the last para is highly debateable (and probably stems from the writers agenda - WOT = bad). If you rephrase it as 'social phenomena have cut-off points' it makes a lot more sense. Societies act to resolve problems that reach a certain level and this results in a 'cut off point'. Note the paper clearly shows that actions to date (the data is up to 2004) have not been sufficient. More data may show the problem is 'slowing down' due to the WOT but to date it does not. And before I get flamed for that statement, this is global data and the USA may well be safer but at the expense of other places being less safe. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-20 2:53:59 AM |
| #1 I was sufficiently intrigued by this to find the original paper. It makes certain things clear that the article makes a hash of explaining (I'll ignore that the writer is trying to reconcile the data with his anti-WOT agenda resulting in obsfurscation). In summary terrorist attacks are getting more frequent and more severe. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-20 2:39:17 AM |