Nate Silver: The Odds of Airborne Terror

[babylonsister]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html

The Odds of Airborne Terror
Nate Silver


Not going to do any editorializing here; just going to do some non-fancy math. James Joyner asks:

There have been precisely three attempts over the last eight years to commit acts of terrorism aboard commercial aircraft. All of them clownishly inept and easily thwarted by the passengers. How many tens of thousands of flights have been incident free?

Let's expand Joyner's scope out to the past decade. Over the past decade, there have been, by my count, six attempted terrorist incidents on board a commercial airliner than landed in or departed from the United States: the four planes that were hijacked on 9/11, the shoe bomber incident in December 2001, and the NWA flight 253 incident on Christmas.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics provides a wealth of statistical information on air traffic. For this exercise, I will look at both domestic flights within the US, and international flights whose origin or destination was within the United States. I will not look at flights that transported cargo and crew only. I will look at flights spanning the decade from October 1999 through September 2009 inclusive (the BTS does not yet have data available for the past couple of months).

Over the past decade, according to BTS, there have been 99,320,309 commercial airline departures that either originated or landed within the United States. Dividing by six, we get one terrorist incident per 16,553,385 departures.

These departures flew a collective 69,415,786,000 miles. That means there has been one terrorist incident per 11,569,297,667 mles flown. This distance is equivalent to 1,459,664 trips around the diameter of the Earth, 24,218 round trips to the Moon, or two round trips to Neptune.

Assuming an average airborne speed of 425 miles per hour, these airplanes were aloft for a total of 163,331,261 hours. Therefore, there has been one terrorist incident per 27,221,877 hours airborne. This can also be expressed as one incident per 1,134,245 days airborne, or one incident per 3,105 years airborne.

There were a total of 674 passengers, not counting crew or the terrorists themselves, on the flights on which these incidents occurred. By contrast, there have been 7,015,630,000 passenger enplanements over the past decade. Therefore, the odds of being on given departure which is the subject of a terrorist incident have been 1 in 10,408,947 over the past decade. By contrast, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are about 1 in 500,000. This means that you could board 20 flights per year and still be less likely to be the subject of an attempted terrorist attack than to be struck by lightning.

Again, no editorializing (for now). These are just the numbers.

[Thickasabrick]

1. Nate rules - thanks for posting this!! nt

[Pavulon]

2. Yep. Flying is safe and the TSA is not the SS

heart disease and cancer. Face it folks, that is what you are going to get. Vast majority of americans die normal deaths.

[Unvanguard]

3. Obviously we need to invade the clouds. n/t

[Mari333]

27. rofl

[TexasObserver]

4. 20 times as likely to be hit by lightning as encounter terrorists on a plane

[Aviation Pro]

5. Yes, the statistics tell us that becoming a victim of a terrorist attack....

...are remote and the numbers are miniscule compared to passenger seat miles (or any other metric that the feds or the airlines use), but.......

THE POINT OF TERRORISM IS NOT, FUCKING REPEAT NOT, THE EVENT BUT THE AFTER EFFECTS OF THE EVENT. IN THIS CASE THAT AFTER EFFECT IS THE COLLAPSE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY.

Thank God there are adults who understand this and not numbers geeks like Silver, who is acting like a fucking infant in this case.

[Unvanguard]

10. The reaction of the US economy is not a law of nature.

If the US economy reacts poorly to extremely rare and so far ineffectual airplane terrorist attacks, then that is because so many Americans react irrationally to them, not because it is intrinsic to the event.

Obviously this event is important because of the reaction to it: most obviously, because of the added inconveniences for people traveling by air. But the question remains whether the reactions are actually rational, and numbers geekery is a perfectly appropriate way to tackle that.

[varelse]

22. Yes, 911 definitely was a resounding success

especially when it is brought into consideration that the nation which paid the price for that attack had absolutely fuck all to do with it (Iraq).

[Kalun D]

29. THE BIG SHAM

And this is what proves that the "war on terror" is nothing but a sham. With the reaction to 911 that didn't even capture the (supposed) perps, and instead went into another country and only succeeded in creating many more terrorists. Was it stupidity or intentional? From everything I've seen it was intentional. Ever since the Russians folded the MIC has been looking for an excuse to exist. "Terror" is perfect because it can never be defeated, it's a never ending war.

[Kalun D]

28. Depends

How you react to the event. If you react with stupidity then it will collapse the economy. If you react with intelligence it won't.

All you have to do is stop the wars for oil and their indiscriminate bombing. The terrorists don't want to suicide but we've given them no choice.

[Bill McBlueState]

38. wow, you missed the point with flair. n/t

[valerief]

6. More on airline safety

with Foster Brooks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M01ondZHKL0&feature=related

[blondeatlast]

7. Maybe so, but the point of terrorism is to make people afraid, not to do actual harm.

Statistics don't really matter here. The basic idea of terrorism works and the science doesn't matter except for the psychology involved.

I note that there is no editorial comment--perhaps that's why.

[valerief]

8. That's right. It's to siphon taxpayer money out of taxpayer benefits. nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kalun D]

32. Is that the real reason? Islam?

or do they want to kill us because we've been killing them at 100 to 1 for the last 15 years?


""terrorists aren't as nuanced as us""

So Arabs are stupid then? Did you know Iraq had the least economic disparity in the Arab world? They also had the best schools with the highest literacy rate, exceeding the US in some respects.

Then we bombed them back into the 3rd world in our war for oil. Who is the real terrorist here?

[babylonsister]

12. And that could be why Obama played golf...

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/why_obamas_golfing.php

Why The President Went Golfing Today

In Fahrenheit 9/11, filmmaker Michael Moore juxtaposes images and words of a terrorist attack in Israel with President Bush's first words about the incident, spoken to a press pool on a golf course, with him leaning casually against a tree. Today, as the nation's law enforcement agencies respond to an attempted terrorist attack on U.S. soil, as the cable news channels and news websites pull in reinforcements to cover the incident from all angles, President Obama has been silent.

In fact, he's been golfing. He received a counterterrorism briefing early this morning, Hawaii time, and moments later, left for the gym. The president's vacation activities might have become the subject of a fierce partisan fight -- but really, the only carping is coming from the usual suspects on the right.

There is a reason why Obama hasn't given a public statement. It's strategy.

Here's the theory: a two-bit mook is sent by Al Qaeda to do a dastardly deed. He winds up neutering himself. Literally.

Authorities respond appropriately; the president (as this president is wont to to) presides over the federal response. His senior aides speak for him, letting reporters know that he's videoconferencing regularly, that he's ordering a review of terrorist watch lists, that he's discoursing with his secretary of Homeland Security.

But an in-person Obama statement isn't needed; Indeed, a message expressing command, control, outrage and anger might elevate the importance of the deed, would generate panic (because Obama usually DOESN'T talk about the specifics of cases like this, and so him deciding to do so would cue the American people to respond in a way that exacerbates the situation).

Obama of course will say something at some point. Had the terrorist blown up the plane, it's safe to assume that Obama would no longer be in Hawaii. In either case, the public will need presidential fortification at some point. But Obama is willing to risk the accusation that he is "soft" on terrorism or is hovering above it all, or is just not to be bothered (his "head's in the sand," or "golfing comes first") in order to advance what he believes is the proper collective response to a failed act of terrorism.

Let the authorities do their work. Don't presume; don't panic the country; don't chest-thump, prejudge, interfere, politicize (in an international sense), don't give Al Qaeda (or whomever) a symbolic victory; resist the urge to open the old playbook and run a familiar play.

In a sense, he is projecting his calm on the American people, just as his advisers are convinced that the Bush administration projected their panic and anger on the self-same public eight years ago.

It's a tough and novel approach -- and not at all (as they say in Britain) party political -- because the standard political script would have the president and his attorney general appearing everywhere as soon as possible.

[blondeatlast]

14. Obama reacted very responsibly, thank God (or, well, who/whatever).

Bush exploited our natural concern into full blown fear. It isn't foolish or naive to give a passing thought to the possibility of being blasted out of a plane at 20K feet, but it should be just that--a passing thought.

I still like that Silver didn't editorialize--he wants a dialog, I think,.

[Hekate]

23. Well done. No drama Obama, just get the job done without chest-thumping. nt

[marshall]

9. What are the odds of being struck by a plane while standing on the ground?

One can avoid flying and reduce that liklihood to nil, but there's still the possibility of having a plane crash into you while you're minding your own business on the ground.

[HeresyLives]

13. Well if spreading fear amongst the populace,

so they lose all sight of reality is the purpose, the 'terrorists' won long ago.

[optimator]

15. Nate Silver needs to shut his fucking mouth and do statistics

more of this type article and less whoring for the DLC.
I'm sure this shit stain will be screaming for war with Yemen when the check clears.

[babylonsister]

17. And what are you contributing responsibly without your abuse? Do you

have a coherent thought? And why do you think he whores for the DLC? I've seen no indication of that.
And he's never screamed for war with anyone.

PS Do you even have a clue who Nate Silver is?????

[Hekate]

18. Who the hell are you again?

:wtf: are you trying to say? You're just this side of incoherent.

Hekate

[blondeatlast]

19. Why should Silver shut up and you be allowed to post ignorant responses on the web?

What part of "no editorializing, at least for now" do you not get? Where's is there any "shilling for the DLC" in reporting some numbers?

[Unvanguard]

20. Or, maybe, just maybe, he makes rational decisions based on his reading of the evidence

and sometimes his conclusions agree with yours, and sometimes they don't...

[bfarq]

16. Why are these people so inept?

Statistics are wonderful. You can prove anything with statistics.

If just one of those clowns was halfway competent, we wouldn't be talking about statistics. We'd be talking about 100 or 200 dead.

If a person went to all the trouble to get a device on-board, you would think they would do a little testing first so they could actually pull off their act.

I'm not hoping for that, of course, but I don't take any comfort from the fact that the only thing stopping the disaster was the ineptitude of the perp.

[Kalun D]

25. Waste of Money and Resources

How many Trillions for the "war on terror" and "homeland security"? How many dollars lost by tying up the airlines?

Those 100 or 200 dead per year saved, how much did it cost to save each one? How many soldiers have died in the war on terror?

There's 40,000 people die every year due to lack of health care. Could just $1 Trillion have saved all of them? How about just $500 Billion? That's $12.5-MIL per patient. How about just $2-MIL per, that's only $80-BIL to save 40K, sort of makes that $TRILLIONS to save a few hundred a year look like crap.

There is no real substantial "terror" threat, it's all a sham exaggerated fabrication. Just like the "war on terror" is really just a war for oil.

[Hekate]

30. Terrorism is a technique, not a nation to be invaded. But it exists; just ask the Irish, the French,

... the Israelis, the English, and the people of Mumbai. Just ask the people of New York City, many of whom can't draw a full breath to this day, due to the aerosolized metals, plastics, and a lot of other unmentionable stuff in the air following 9-11.

It does have to be dealt with, and it is a separate issue from HCR, which also has to be dealt with. Don't conflate the two --that just makes you look ill-informed.

The problem with terrorism aimed at the US, which is real, is that the Bush-Cheney admin did not deal with it intelligently or effectively. Instead, they encouraged us to be fearful, and they invaded two countries.

We are stuck with their legacy for now and it will take awhile to move away from that. But don't say it doesn't matter if airplanes are driven into buildings, because that's just heartless.

Hekate

[bfarq]

33. Right and it isn't just to terrorize passengers

A primary goal is to punish America where it really hurts us. In the wallet.

Many executives have probably gone through the calculations like the one above that says it isn't economically efficient to save 200 people a year. And those who are attacking America know that the powers that be don't really give a shit about the safety of the American public. But what they really, really care about is money.

And that is the point of attacking airplanes. One successful incident will immediately exact a multi-billion dollar loss on the airline industry, which will in turn have ripple effects on the hotel business, car rental business, and convention business. If you are looking for a way to cost America lots and lots of money, this is a good one.

Economic terrorism. Bin Laden isn't trying to kill us directly. He's trying to get us to destroy ourselves.

[Kalun D]

35. Qui Bono?

Who's benefited from the "war on terror"? Let's see, the oil companies like Exxon made $50-BILLION profit in one year after they gained control of Iraqi oil.

Wonder what their cost risk analysis is when they get the taxpayers to pick up the tab in their war for oil? Go down the line, Halliburton, and the military industrial complex, it's all the same, nothing but benefits. They've even had a little to kick back to the airlines if I'm not mistaken. Overall it's a win-win for the big corps at the expense of the people both here and in the countries where they're dying by the 1,000's.

[bfarq]

40. Qui bono indeed

Obviously the multinational oil companies have done well. Some have taken contracts for pumping Iraqi oil. All benefit from much higher BBL prices. Some will benefit from the pipeline that our occupation of Afghanistan sets up. And the key word is MULTINATIONAL. These companies don't give a shit about America or Americans, yet, they have put themselves in a position for America single-handedly to spend trillions from our taxpayers to create a situation where the multinationals can make more money.

Weapons industry benefits. Any time we can create unrest, they create a situation where the US buys a lot more weapons at a very high price essentially under no-bid contracts. (There may be a bidding process, but maybe only 2 or three players who are effectively a cartel in the first place.) Not just that, but the American-fabricated global unrest puts the weapons companies in a position to sell more weapons to EVERYBODY. And that's the nice thing about this so-called "war on terror." There is no defined enemy. When we had the cold war, we could (usually) sell weapons only to our allies (notwithstanding some infamous exceptions.) But with the "war on terror", you can sell weapons to EVERYBODY, because everybody is against terror, right?

Israel benefits. The last thing they want is a climate of peace because that would make it difficult for them to exploit their overwhelming military advantage in the region to dominate their neighbors militarily and economically. They love the unrest because that gives them carte blanch to bomb anybody anytime without repercussions.

The Pentagon benefits. They are in the war-fighting business, after all. Acts of terrorism endure they push their budget neat the trillion-dollars-a-year level.

The media benefits. War is the perfect programming. Cheap to cover, especially when the Pentagon is so obliging to embed reporters. No writers to bay. Only have to pay a few retired generals to whore themselves on TV.

Those probably the top 5. I'm sure there are many more who benefit in a big way, but that's such a powerful list, they can do anything they want.

[Hekate]

36. see my post #26

[Kalun D]

34. 500,000 Iraqi Children

died under US sanctions and bombings during the Clinton years. This didn't start with bush.

Just ask the Iraqi parents if terror exists, when 500,000 of their children were killed. And then ask yourself what's a better way to stop terror? Try to defend against someone you've driven to be willing to commit suicide? Or stop the engagement of your own terrorism?

[varelse]

21. You know - I think that is what makes terrorist attacks on travel routes so damned effective

a lot of despair, fear, paranoia, and chaos can be generated so cheaply - even when an attack fails to actually kill or injure anyone, it makes international headlines.

Perhaps we should be thinking about revamping our response to terrorist attacks to make them less effective and more costly (to "freedom fighter HQ" that is - the foot soldiers already pay "the ultimate price").

[Kalun D]

24. Cost Risk Analysis

This is one of the reasons "homeland security" and the "war on terror" are such a sham. How many trillions have they spent? And how many lives saved?

I know when they design/build the interstate highways there's a certain amount of money they will spend on safety equipment/design to save one life. It's a loss return calculation. I think it's around $1-MIL per life saved. Going over that is not cost effective.

Ask how much we have spent and how many lives have been saved in that same time period. Then divide the dollars by number of lives saved. I'm sure it's far more expensive to save lives from terror than it is from hiway accident. To the point of not being cost effective compared to how many lives you could save with the same amount of money spent on health care. Then if you calculate in the soldiers deaths, it's probably a net loss of life even with all that money spent.

But hey, then the filthy POS scumbag evil greed pig CEO's of the defense corps and insurance corps wouldn't be taking home their $500-MILLIONS.

[Hekate]

26. There's no dispute that a bit over 8 years ago we suffered a massive shock to our collective psyche.

I will never forget being awakened by my daughter's phone call, urgently telling me to turn on CNN. Images from that day and the next week are burned into my brain. Thousands dead, some of them from jumping out of windows hundreds of feet in the air while smoke and flame urged them on. First responders caught in the collapse of buildings at the heart of our arrogant global financial system.

As a nation, we always had been protected by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Even Pearl Harbor could not compare to 9-11-01, because Pearl Harbor was not on the continental US by some 3,000 miles.

No more. We joined the unfortunate brotherhood of nations forced to deal with terrorism at home. Only, the Bush-Cheney administration behaved as though no one else ever had this problem, and that there was nothing that the Israelis, French, Irish, or any one else could teach us about how to deal with it.

The problems that we and our government had in dealing with this were, in my opinion, as bad as the act itself. Our President, and especially our Vice President, reacted with panic, as did the Congress.

What's the point of terrorism as a technique? To strike terror into the hearts of their targets by killing randomly. Even if they aim at a particular target, the collateral death and damage are intentional. Witnesses and survivors are terrorized. Terror and panic are destructive to those experiencing them -- they may well self-destruct from these emotions.

What did the mighty, invincible, free and democratic republic of the United States of America do in response to the terrible deeds of 9-11? Our President and all his henchmen encouraged us to remain in a state of panic and terror. In that mode they easily convinced the US Congress to pass the USA PATRIOT Act in record time, and later on Patriot Act 2, although that was in bits and pieces.

This legislation and various actions by the Executive branch designed to "make the Homeland safe" were acts of self-destruction. Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda didn't shred our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We did it to ourselves.

The terrorists won that round, imo. They have no reason to stop trying to win another. Does that mean we must live in a state of fear and panic?

What Nate seems to be doing here is trying to give a psychological boost to those worried that every flight is at risk, when that is not the case. Flying is still safer than driving your personal car on the freeway, yet we do that every day. But the fact that when we fly we are bombarded with fearful images and intrusive inconveniences is psychologically and emotionally difficult, arousing fear and anger (it sure pisses me off). Nate seems to be saying: well, at least the odds are that you really are going to get there all right. The odds are good.

The editorializing and decisions about how to balance freedom and security are something we have to work out for ourselves. Nate just crunched the numbers.

Hekate

[msongs]

31. tobacco kills 400,000 Americans EVERY year yet there is no war on it because

big tobacco gives tons of money to elected politicians?

Msongs

[unblock]

37. even if you narrowed the statistics to JUST 9/11/01, the odds are still remote

there are something like 37,000 scheduled commercial flights every day.

had you been scheduled to fly ON 9/11/01, your chance of being involved in a terrorist attack would have been 4 in 37,000 or about 0.01%.

which is actually pretty close to your chances of dying driving coast-to-coast and back, which you might have done when your flight was cancelled.

[ladjf]

39. Babylon, don't you know that objective thinking is passe'. Now

days we just "make up stuff" to suit our fancy. It's much simpler and more fun. Get with it!

[bemildred]

41. About like your chance of dying from an infected hangnail. tn