The Mortal Threat
by Andrew Nowobilski
E(C) = P(C) * C
Expected cost of an attack equals probability of the costly incident occurring multiplied by the cost of the incident. This equation explains Vice President Dick Cheney‘s 1 percent doctrine. The 1 percent doctrine, as elucidated by Ron Suskind in The One-Percent Doctrine, is Cheney’s view that ''if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction… the United States must now act as if it were a certainty” (see New York Times June 20 review by Michiko Kakutani). OK, so that’s not quite correct Mr. Cheney. But critics can chortle all they want; Cheney’s instincts are right, and disturbingly so.
Assume the American electorate will tolerate only a certain expected cost in terms of terrorist attacks. This desire is approximately rational and consonant with preserving “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” So E(C) is more or less fixed,. Now over the last fifty years C, or cost per incident, has risen meteorically. This is due to the explosion of high-yield, advanced weapons technology, mass production techniques that have made said technology widely available on the black market, and constantly progressing miniaturization techniques.
Therefore, in order to keep E(C) fixed, the government must somehow suppress P(C). Cheney’s argument that the government “must act as if there’s a 100 percent chance” is simply his admittedly awkward way of saying that the government must take threats seriously and suppress P(C). Enter the War on Terror, with its NSA wiretaps, the Patriot Act, and the Department of Homeland Security.
It is a foregone conclusion that in this situation that at least some liberty will be sacrificed for the sake of life and freedom from the tyranny of Islamo-fascists. If a people foresees the terrorist threat, advance action will minimize the terrorist threat, and increase, at least partially, the threat posed by government. Option two is that a people does not foresee the threat, or does and chooses to ignore it. Assuming the threat is real, an attack will eventually occur, and people will panic, rushing headlong into their chains. Illiberalism is therefore more or less a natural equilibrium and not a choice. Either way, as C increases, P(C) will fall, which means that - for a time at least - liberty will be restrained by popular will.
This problem is only going to get worse. Terrorism is fundamentally driven by technology. Without it, terrorism cannot exist. A pike man, a swordsman--even a gangster armed with a Tommy gun--cannot pose a serious enough threat to transform the geopolitical landscape. But with technology comes miniaturized nukes, ever-more sophisticated and deadly biological and chemical weapons, and plenty of ways of coordinating individuals over vast distances. In The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman outlines how technology and globalization create “Super Empowered Angry Men,” individuals who can play the same game as nations because technology “empowers” them. In X-Men 3, the US President asks his secretary of mutant affairs how democracy can persist when a single man can pose a mortal threat to the entire society on a whim. Terrorists are these Super Empowered Angry Men; they are Dark Phoenix. As Thomas Friedman notes, a “[nuclear] warhead exploding 300 miles above Omaha would instantly zap the United States from coast to coast,” melting down every computer and circuit in the country.
So what happens as technology advances further and further? What happens as miniaturization makes nuclear materials smaller and more transportable? What happens as genetic science and cloning leads to the re-invention or modification of deadly pathogens, present and past? Scientists have already brought the deadly Spanish flu back from extinction, and in the grand scheme of things genetic science is still in its early stages. In 1900 everyone rode around in horses and buggies; just think of where we will be in 2100 relative to today.
We cannot avoid the march of technological advancement. The choice between liberty and security is not before us because of some crafty, secretly-autocratic Republicans. Technology has irrevocably transformed the strategic landscape by super-empowering the individual. This cannot be reversed any more than we can un-invent the nuclear bomb.
Let’s say we fail to quash terrorism. C will rise. Cheney’s 1 percent doctrine will be replaced with 0.1 percent, or 0.01 percent doctrines. As the damage dealt by a single attack increases, the probability of attack that is tolerable decreases. As this happens civil liberties will give way. The real problem is that if we do not suppress terrorism sufficiently, if we do not decrease P(C) by decreasing the supply of terrorists, someday (far in the future perhaps, but some day) P(C) will have to plummet, and a revoking civil liberties will be the only option. Then something horrible will happen, much worse than public panic: The authoritarians will be right.
If that is a sobering thought, then let us recommit ourselves to the proposition that the only acceptable victory in this War on Terror is a total one. Whether by co-opting angry young Muslims into a capitalist economy, or by spreading democracy, or by simply hunting down Osama and his ilk, we must prevail. Whether we will is another matter entirely.
E(C) = P(C) * C
Expected cost of an attack equals probability of the costly incident occurring multiplied by the cost of the incident. This equation explains Vice President Dick Cheney‘s 1 percent doctrine. The 1 percent doctrine, as elucidated by Ron Suskind in The One-Percent Doctrine, is Cheney’s view that ''if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction… the United States must now act as if it were a certainty” (see New York Times June 20 review by Michiko Kakutani). OK, so that’s not quite correct Mr. Cheney. But critics can chortle all they want; Cheney’s instincts are right, and disturbingly so.
Assume the American electorate will tolerate only a certain expected cost in terms of terrorist attacks. This desire is approximately rational and consonant with preserving “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” So E(C) is more or less fixed,. Now over the last fifty years C, or cost per incident, has risen meteorically. This is due to the explosion of high-yield, advanced weapons technology, mass production techniques that have made said technology widely available on the black market, and constantly progressing miniaturization techniques.
Therefore, in order to keep E(C) fixed, the government must somehow suppress P(C). Cheney’s argument that the government “must act as if there’s a 100 percent chance” is simply his admittedly awkward way of saying that the government must take threats seriously and suppress P(C). Enter the War on Terror, with its NSA wiretaps, the Patriot Act, and the Department of Homeland Security.
It is a foregone conclusion that in this situation that at least some liberty will be sacrificed for the sake of life and freedom from the tyranny of Islamo-fascists. If a people foresees the terrorist threat, advance action will minimize the terrorist threat, and increase, at least partially, the threat posed by government. Option two is that a people does not foresee the threat, or does and chooses to ignore it. Assuming the threat is real, an attack will eventually occur, and people will panic, rushing headlong into their chains. Illiberalism is therefore more or less a natural equilibrium and not a choice. Either way, as C increases, P(C) will fall, which means that - for a time at least - liberty will be restrained by popular will.
This problem is only going to get worse. Terrorism is fundamentally driven by technology. Without it, terrorism cannot exist. A pike man, a swordsman--even a gangster armed with a Tommy gun--cannot pose a serious enough threat to transform the geopolitical landscape. But with technology comes miniaturized nukes, ever-more sophisticated and deadly biological and chemical weapons, and plenty of ways of coordinating individuals over vast distances. In The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas Friedman outlines how technology and globalization create “Super Empowered Angry Men,” individuals who can play the same game as nations because technology “empowers” them. In X-Men 3, the US President asks his secretary of mutant affairs how democracy can persist when a single man can pose a mortal threat to the entire society on a whim. Terrorists are these Super Empowered Angry Men; they are Dark Phoenix. As Thomas Friedman notes, a “[nuclear] warhead exploding 300 miles above Omaha would instantly zap the United States from coast to coast,” melting down every computer and circuit in the country.
So what happens as technology advances further and further? What happens as miniaturization makes nuclear materials smaller and more transportable? What happens as genetic science and cloning leads to the re-invention or modification of deadly pathogens, present and past? Scientists have already brought the deadly Spanish flu back from extinction, and in the grand scheme of things genetic science is still in its early stages. In 1900 everyone rode around in horses and buggies; just think of where we will be in 2100 relative to today.
We cannot avoid the march of technological advancement. The choice between liberty and security is not before us because of some crafty, secretly-autocratic Republicans. Technology has irrevocably transformed the strategic landscape by super-empowering the individual. This cannot be reversed any more than we can un-invent the nuclear bomb.
Let’s say we fail to quash terrorism. C will rise. Cheney’s 1 percent doctrine will be replaced with 0.1 percent, or 0.01 percent doctrines. As the damage dealt by a single attack increases, the probability of attack that is tolerable decreases. As this happens civil liberties will give way. The real problem is that if we do not suppress terrorism sufficiently, if we do not decrease P(C) by decreasing the supply of terrorists, someday (far in the future perhaps, but some day) P(C) will have to plummet, and a revoking civil liberties will be the only option. Then something horrible will happen, much worse than public panic: The authoritarians will be right.
If that is a sobering thought, then let us recommit ourselves to the proposition that the only acceptable victory in this War on Terror is a total one. Whether by co-opting angry young Muslims into a capitalist economy, or by spreading democracy, or by simply hunting down Osama and his ilk, we must prevail. Whether we will is another matter entirely.
posted by Andrew Nowobilski at 9:11 PM
1 Comments:
This was a terrific piece, Andrew.
"Let’s say we fail to quash terrorism. C will rise...As this happens civil liberties will give way..."
To better assist my nitpicking, let L = amount of civil liberties we have yet to forfeit.
I also like to believe that P(C) and L are directly proportional. I don't think I could prove that. Could you? If so, how are they related? I doubt they are linearly proportional. It's probably some fancy quadratic relationship.
In either case, you arrive at the correct conclusion. Victory should be our goal. My opinion of the enemy is particularly lackluster. I am convinced these thugs redefine words like TLC’s “scrub,” “JV,” and “C-squad.” Although I cannot write them off as insane (their brutality is starkly lucid), these guys comprise a rather trite chapter in the storied history of monopolistic power-grab campaigns hosted by homogenizing totalitarians. There is no doubt that we CAN achieve total victory (I’d be glad to define that if anyone needs it). My only fear is that we will lose hold of the political will necessary.
In 1944, Americans diverted 38% of their GDP toward defense spending. Today, we are down to 3.4%, but that’s still too much. WWII saw 405,300 military deaths (0.031% of our population). Terror confrontation in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost roughly 3000 deaths (0.001% of our population), but those sacrifices are somehow less commendable. We are more eager to remember a natural disaster (and recipient of $122.5 billion in federal relief) after 1 year than to remember the attacks of 9/11 (recipient of only $22.0 billion in federal relief) after 5 years. Somehow, we’ve created an environment where countless Americans have an easier time fearing the U.S. than the enemy.
Logistically, terror doesn’t stand a chance in this war. Al Qaeda leadership is all-but eradicated, economic performances and standards of living in Iraq and Afghanistan are skyrocketing, and Middle-Eastern terrorist that flood into Iraq for salvation are finding their battle more and more desperate. Their only prayer is the faltering of our will for victory. Our list of weaknesses is slim, but the enemy is very conscious of this particular line item. Seeing how it’s their only hope, there must be a way we can thwart their attack on our patience.
Ideas?
Regards,
Avery
Post a Comment
<< Home