There appears to be a dearth of serious analysis as to just how great a risk of terrorist attack we face. Individual research, e.g. Stewart and Mueller suggests a greatly exaggerated threat. So what is any government's response to this, have they conducted any proper risk analysis and if so, what are the results? This is vital if we are to have a serious debate on terrorism and counter-terrorism. In addition, any governmental cost-benefit analysis of security measures would be most welcome as part of the debate.
I am sure, risk analysis of terrorist threats have been performed, in Northern Ireland as well as in Switzerland. But the nature of this kind of assessment requires the findings to be classified. A publication defeats the object of the study.
Agreed, high level output of risk analysis (national) may be available, but only as long as no more detail is asked for in terms of probability and vulnerability.
https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attachments/48136.pdf
Homeland Security Model (FEMA/DHS/USA)
https://www.fema.gov/security-risk-management-series-publications
Article The Department of Homeland Security's Risk Assessment Method...
As early as his Senate confirmation hearing, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff advocated a risk-based approach to homeland security.
Secretary Chertoff has stated "DHS must base its work on priorities driven by risk" and, increasingly, risk assessment and subsequent risk mitigation have influenced all of the department's efforts intended to enhance our nation's ability to prevent, respond to, and recover from future terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
As noted, most of the findings are likely classified particularly about foiled and failed plots because those tend not to show up in the open sources. I can speak a bit to the methods of terrorism research, which relies heavily on statistical models like Monte Carlo analysis and probabilistic risk assessments. Often when the government contracts for a risk assessment, they are asking about a specific threat say "what is the chance of terrorists getting a nuclear weapon" or "how is ISIS likely to evolve in the next few years" rather than a broad risk of terrorism as a whole. I'm not aware of a good cost-benefit analysis off the top of my head, but I'd be interested in seeing one. Remember of course that a lot of counter-terrorism measures are based on politics rather than risk assessment. If you'd like to dive into it on your own, my organization's database is one of the most comprehensive on the incident level: http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology