Terrorists have won?

I've read a couple of pundits announce that the terrorists have won on account of the nonsense that we now tolerate.  Who would have thought that Americans would submit to taking off shoes, belts, and even allow themselves to be frisked in order to board a plane?  Who'd have guessed we'd be so indifferent to massive data collection by the government?  It seems that the much ballyhooed right to privacy only applies to abortions but not email, phone calls, and internet searches.  The massive inconvenience of the modern security state only promises to get worse.  But are we safer?  Is it worth it?

I was listening to EconTalk not too long ago and the guest argued that all the expense was not justified, that we'd be better off just absorbing the occasional terrorist attack than creating Homeland Security and spending billions of dollars.  Wow, that was a heck of a thing to say.  But let's look at it in comparison to other issues.  The death toll from terrorism is miniscule when compared to heart disease, cancer, stoke, accidents, diabetes, influenza, or even suicide.  You are vastly more likely to kill yourself than die in a terrorist attack.  Can you imagine a Department of Suicide Prevention?  It would make more sense than Homeland Security based on the numbers.

Many would argue that we have stopped lots of plots thanks to the security state and that is probably why the death by terrorism numbers are so low.  I'd call that post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.  The terrorists had one really impressive attack on 9/11.  That attack cannot happen again, because passengers will never sit idly by again.  It was like the Trojan Horse; you can't pull that stunt a second time.  So, short of a nuclear bomb, mass casualties are virtually impossible.  Look at the Boston Marathon attack that killed 3.  That same day, approximately 1,600 Americans died from cancer, 350 died from strokes, and about a hundred committed suicide.  We are reacting to the threat based on fear, not rational choices.

 

I mentioned a nuclear bomb.  If Iran develops a nuke, all of a sudden the calculus changes.  A nuke could turn a city of millions into a smoking hole.  Nuclear proliferation would justify many of the expenses and inconveniences of the security state.  This scenario is becoming more likely every day as we twiddle our thumbs while Iran continues to enrich uranium.

 

I don't think the security state means the terrorist have won but it does pretty clearly indicate that they have instilled a lot of terror.  There needs to be an analysis of costs vs. benefits.  The money spent on Homeland Security, the TSA, the NSA, and so forth might save far more lives if it was spent elsewhere, preferably not by government.