Terrorism is a controversial issue that's dominated a large portion of the political discourse in the past few years. With breaking news flashes and horrifying pictures and stories of incidents of terrorist attacks, we often panic, fearing for the safety of ourselves and the people around us. The immediate panic that sets in after seeing a terrorist attack on television or on the news is known as the availability heuristic. Our brains are not inherently adept at probability, and therefore in these aforementioned instances, we overestimate our chances of being subject to a terrorist attack, when in reality, our real chances in an entire lifetime of being killed lie around 1 in 45,808 (http://www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-accidents-2017-1). That may seem fairly likely, but it pales in comparison to other causes of death, such as car, van, or truck incidents, which is 1 in 565. Since 9/11, the United States has spent over $1 trillion on anti-terrorism measures. These are all taxpayers dollars that come from the pockets of every American citizen. Does the threat of terrorism merit the enormous funds that the United States government allocates to it? What about the rest of the international community?
To see this working, head to your live site.
What would you recommend as a proper amount of spending?
While the financial measures taken by the US have certainly played a central role in diminishing threats of terrorism, an overwhelming portion of the nation's GDP has been allocated towards the military and similar ventures for the, "war against terror." Yes, substantial financial resources are required to combat terror threats, but the vast sum spent by the US is not the answer.
Would it be fair to say that the extensive financial measures taken by the US are the reason that the odds of terrorism are so low?