In view of the tragic (and still growing) toll of yesterday’s earthquake, and considering the likelihood that it will happen again, possibly on an even larger scale (think Tokyo or San Andreas), it is high time to declare a war on natural catastrophes and take all necessary measures, including military, to prevent another such catastrophe from striking our shores ever again.

more …

… more seriously:

There will not be a "War on Catastrophes" because we all realize that this is not something we can have any control over (in the foreseeable future) and that it simply makes no sense. There is no enemy as such, all we can do is try to anticipate such events, limit the damage by smart design and planning of the areas most likely to be affected, and have the ability to react quickly to cope with the consequences if it happens.

This all sounds reasonable and smart, so why don’t we propose to do the same with "terror"?

• anticipate such events:
  That means finding out who has the ability to carry out attacks, trying to anticipate their plans, and, if it is possible, trying to understand why they would do that. Intelligence work.
  In the case of terror, it can even be argued that it is possible to act against the root causes of such acts (hate against the West, from cultural alienation or  because of our support for corrupt regimes) and limit the supply of potential terrorists
• smart design and planning
  That means identifying the most vulnerable – or symbolic – targets and the ways they could be attacked, and organizing their protection against these. It also means getting the right kind of  intelligence about who or what could be targeting them, and planning on ways to limit the damage (starting to design smaller, more decentralized facilities, with sufficient back up for vital functions, etc)
• ability to react
  That means having sufficient civil security personnel, PD, FD, hospitals, contingency plans, with sufficient supplies for most situations.

That all sounds fine, but the fact is, we don’t even do this (or only very partially) for natural events whose likelihood is quite significant over long periods of time, and when the cost-benefit ratio is quite easy to calculate (the likely cost of an earthquake can be estimated, along with a rough probability of it happening within, say, a 50 year period, and that provides a likely cost which in turn suggests amounts that it would make sense to spend each year on preventive measures today). Money spent today on unlikely events is seen as a waste or a chore, there is very limited political benefit to do it, so it does not happen …

… except for a little while after a large enough catastrophe. Get ready to hear about today about tidal wave detection, coastal areal building planning, and scaremongering about global warming, etc… Same thing after a big train or plane accident, when you suddenly start talking about investing billions to improve whatever little bit of infrastructure happened to be deficient that day (signals, railway crossings, pilot training, airport schedules, etc…). And same thing, of course, after a big terrorist attack.

Strangely enough, events similar in their nature and their consequences do not lead to the same actions:

• car accidents vs train (or bus, or plane) accidents:
  Car accidents are way more deadly, way more easily preventable, but they do not generate any kind of outrage or even public attention, and therefore mostly go uncured. Train, bus or plane crashes generate big headlines, inquiries and calls for action even though they are much more rare.

• large scale terrorist attacks vs natural catastrophes:
  Both are essentially random, one-off events. In one case, we spend whatever is needed for clean up, possibly tighten a few planning rules, and that’s it. In the other case, 60 years of international policy and civil rights policy are thrown off the window in a righteous quest to root out "terror", a concept…

So, what’s the difference?

• Is it because, when we drive, we feel in control and we believe that it won’t happen to us, so no public policy should apply and limit our "rights" (including to kill ourselves)? Do we feel that we are in control of our foreign policy when we wage war, thus we feel that we are doing something?
• Is it because, when an event is above a certain threshold of deaths/damages, it warrants (i) attention (it plays on TV)  and (ii) cries (from pundits or politicians) to "do something about it"? and that the only way to "do something about it" which fits the same format (i.e. pundit/politicians on TV) is something easy to describe (a nicely sounding law like "The "Free the USA from Catastrophes and Knowledge of catastrophes – Act") and spectacular (a war is ideal)?
• Is it because some random events appear more likely to apply to us and thus appear more likely threatening to us than they really are? ("Hey, I took the plane last Thanksgiving at that same airport, it could have been me"? "Hey, I was on the roof of the WTC back in 1994, it could have happened then", etc…)
• Is it because a terrorist attack, being man-made, is seen as less random and more subject to action than a natural catastrophe? But is it actually true?
• Is it simply because once something becomes too frequent (and thus a real problem), we don’t really talk about it because we all "know" it happens and it it thus boring and not worth our attention – and our efforts?

Thus we end up spending a lot of resources on trying (of course, mostly uselessly) to "solve" very rare, very spectacular problems instead of trying to solve the real, boring issues?

Can we declare a War on "real but boring problems"?