In the US, are you really more likely to die from a lightning strike than die in a terrorist attack?
According to
fivethirtyeight, you are 20 times more likely to be struck by lightning than fly on a plane where a terrorist attacks. Let's assume for a moment that his calculations are correct.
I think people should redirect some focus from the numbers themselves to the whys. While I think the US anti-terror effort (eg Homeland Security, TSA, etc) have been very ineffective and inefficient, the sheer effort (manpower / $) thrown at the problem
has reduced the terrorist threat. In other words, the stats would not be the same if "business as usual" was standard procedure. However, the "Hows" of the achievement remains murky, and lead to concerns that acting in "business as usual" mode would have yielded the same statistics.
Two things I also would like to know:
1) Has analysis been done on program effectiveness? (Sadly, I think our government agencies lack the competence to do it, nor will they allow themselves to be subject to outside scrutiny)
2) TSA is now a behemoth organization whos edicts are not subject to question. Given this, why isn't there more outcry on the uniformly low standards placed on TSA employees? Can you imagine if FBI / CIA field agents were of the caliber of your average airport screener?
