Joined
·
707 Posts
Those who ridicule or refuse the theorem of survival and prepping are mentioned on this board from time to time. Neighbours, spouses, friends, families and even total strangers struggle to see the ideology and thinking behind “prepping” etc.
So, let’s see how the facts and figures add up.
There are a wide range of figures concerning, for example, the probability of a nuclear attack by a terrorist organisation. Some examples include:
Former Secretary of Defence, William Perry, who put the odds of a nuclear attack by terrorists at roughly 50%.
A former weapons inspector involved in Iraqi cases, David Albright, puts those odds at 1%.
A Council for Foreign Relations senior member, Michael A. Levi, puts the odds of a successful nuclear attack by terrorists at 10%
A model created by a Harvard attendee estimated the chance of a Nuclear attack by terrorists at 29%
Senetor Richard Lugar, in a survey of
“a group of men and women specializing in “non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, diplomacy, military affairs, arms inspection, intelligence gathering, and other national security fields relevant to the questions asked”
found an average estimate of 29% for
“the probability of a nuclear attack occurring somewhere in the world within the next ten years”,
and 79% percent of those asked believed it would be carried out by a non-governmental organisation, i.e. Terrorists. This therefore puts the estimated odds of a nuclear terrorist attack, at 22.91 percent (79 percent of 29).
All of these estimates were made by qualified, experienced and informed persons, who specialize, or have a very good understanding of the subject concerned, so therefore should be reasonably accurate and reliable. If we take these figures and average them, we come to the figure of 22.6% ((50+1+10+29+23)/5), therefore, using 5 examples, one of those examples already being a survey from a large range of experienced professionals, we conclude that the probability of a Nuclear attack by terrorists is around 22.6%.[1]
[1] Some of these figures do not indicate a time span, others do, so therefore these results may vary.
Now let’s take the statistics from studies based on the odds of aircraft coming down (study year: 2001)
According to the NTSB aviation accident database, in 2001, 135 aircraft were involved in a collision of some sort, and a total 1750 aircraft suffered from minor damage to total destruction. Let us take an average number of flights in the year 2001 as 5 million, statistically the chances of your aircraft being involved in some sort of incident was 1750/5000000 or 7/20000 (seven flights in every twenty thousand suffered some sort of fault resulting in minor damage or above).
Let’s compare:
The calculated chances of a Nuclear Attack by a terrorist organisation: 22%
The calculated chances of your aircraft suffering some sort of minor to extreme damage (in 2001): 0.035%
The calculated chances of your house burning down (US) : 0.08%
By looking at these figures, it seems that the chances of a nuclear attack is much more likely than your next flight to Disneyland going down, or your home burning down. Yet many people still have an inherent fear of flying, lifejackets are still put under seats, and the airline insists you listen to the safety briefing every time you’re about to take off. Many people also take out house insurance, for their whole lives, and no fire even touches their home in that time, but how many people do you see preparing for a nuclear attack?
This is the attitude many people have in today’s society. Just because it seems very unlikely, doesn’t mean it is unlikely. If you asked the leaders of Syria, Libya, Egypt etc. how likely is was that the people would rise up and try to overthrow the ruling regime (or in Egypt’s case, actually manage it) in the next ten years, what do you think the leaders of those countries, or even the general public of the western world, would put the probability at, probably a lot less than 22%. Yet there has been more than one country that this has happened to in less than 12 months!
I will you to go out tomorrow, and ask those who ridicule or refuse to even consider your lifestyle:
“What do you think the probability of a nuclear attack will be in the next 10 years, say?”
I bet you the figure they come out with will be a lot less than 22%.
Yet it is these people who take out home insurance for fires, when they have less than a 1% chance of one, and see no problem at all in not taking out other forms of insurance (i.e. food supplies etc.) for a disaster much greater in probability! This isn’t just something like an act of terrorism, but the chances of a natural disaster involving you in the next ten years is around one third, or 33%, and people still think that [Insert Aid Agency here] will help them, sure, they will, but Katrina is still recovering years after, to name but one.
So Survivalistboards, I think you are always going to have the upper hand!
It’s better to be safe, than sorry.
Author: andyhuk 2011
Sources, References and Further Reading:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18230/nuclear_attack_a_worstcase_reality.html
http://lugar.senate.gov/nunnlugar/pdf/NPSurvey.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_chance_of_a_house_fire
http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/3381
http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/opinion/inevitability.html
http://www.physorg.com/news167327145.html>
http://www.air-travel-safety.com/pages/plane-crash-statistics.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_odds_of_a_plane_crash
Bunn 2007
http://nuclearrisk.org/3likely.php
http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-united-states/p13097
So, let’s see how the facts and figures add up.
There are a wide range of figures concerning, for example, the probability of a nuclear attack by a terrorist organisation. Some examples include:
Former Secretary of Defence, William Perry, who put the odds of a nuclear attack by terrorists at roughly 50%.
A former weapons inspector involved in Iraqi cases, David Albright, puts those odds at 1%.
A Council for Foreign Relations senior member, Michael A. Levi, puts the odds of a successful nuclear attack by terrorists at 10%
A model created by a Harvard attendee estimated the chance of a Nuclear attack by terrorists at 29%
Senetor Richard Lugar, in a survey of
“a group of men and women specializing in “non-proliferation, counter-proliferation, diplomacy, military affairs, arms inspection, intelligence gathering, and other national security fields relevant to the questions asked”
found an average estimate of 29% for
“the probability of a nuclear attack occurring somewhere in the world within the next ten years”,
and 79% percent of those asked believed it would be carried out by a non-governmental organisation, i.e. Terrorists. This therefore puts the estimated odds of a nuclear terrorist attack, at 22.91 percent (79 percent of 29).
All of these estimates were made by qualified, experienced and informed persons, who specialize, or have a very good understanding of the subject concerned, so therefore should be reasonably accurate and reliable. If we take these figures and average them, we come to the figure of 22.6% ((50+1+10+29+23)/5), therefore, using 5 examples, one of those examples already being a survey from a large range of experienced professionals, we conclude that the probability of a Nuclear attack by terrorists is around 22.6%.[1]
[1] Some of these figures do not indicate a time span, others do, so therefore these results may vary.
Now let’s take the statistics from studies based on the odds of aircraft coming down (study year: 2001)
According to the NTSB aviation accident database, in 2001, 135 aircraft were involved in a collision of some sort, and a total 1750 aircraft suffered from minor damage to total destruction. Let us take an average number of flights in the year 2001 as 5 million, statistically the chances of your aircraft being involved in some sort of incident was 1750/5000000 or 7/20000 (seven flights in every twenty thousand suffered some sort of fault resulting in minor damage or above).
Let’s compare:
The calculated chances of a Nuclear Attack by a terrorist organisation: 22%
The calculated chances of your aircraft suffering some sort of minor to extreme damage (in 2001): 0.035%
The calculated chances of your house burning down (US) : 0.08%
By looking at these figures, it seems that the chances of a nuclear attack is much more likely than your next flight to Disneyland going down, or your home burning down. Yet many people still have an inherent fear of flying, lifejackets are still put under seats, and the airline insists you listen to the safety briefing every time you’re about to take off. Many people also take out house insurance, for their whole lives, and no fire even touches their home in that time, but how many people do you see preparing for a nuclear attack?
This is the attitude many people have in today’s society. Just because it seems very unlikely, doesn’t mean it is unlikely. If you asked the leaders of Syria, Libya, Egypt etc. how likely is was that the people would rise up and try to overthrow the ruling regime (or in Egypt’s case, actually manage it) in the next ten years, what do you think the leaders of those countries, or even the general public of the western world, would put the probability at, probably a lot less than 22%. Yet there has been more than one country that this has happened to in less than 12 months!
I will you to go out tomorrow, and ask those who ridicule or refuse to even consider your lifestyle:
“What do you think the probability of a nuclear attack will be in the next 10 years, say?”
I bet you the figure they come out with will be a lot less than 22%.
Yet it is these people who take out home insurance for fires, when they have less than a 1% chance of one, and see no problem at all in not taking out other forms of insurance (i.e. food supplies etc.) for a disaster much greater in probability! This isn’t just something like an act of terrorism, but the chances of a natural disaster involving you in the next ten years is around one third, or 33%, and people still think that [Insert Aid Agency here] will help them, sure, they will, but Katrina is still recovering years after, to name but one.
So Survivalistboards, I think you are always going to have the upper hand!
It’s better to be safe, than sorry.
Author: andyhuk 2011
Sources, References and Further Reading:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18230/nuclear_attack_a_worstcase_reality.html
http://lugar.senate.gov/nunnlugar/pdf/NPSurvey.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Stats.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_chance_of_a_house_fire
http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/3381
http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/opinion/inevitability.html
http://www.physorg.com/news167327145.html>
http://www.air-travel-safety.com/pages/plane-crash-statistics.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_odds_of_a_plane_crash
Bunn 2007
http://nuclearrisk.org/3likely.php
http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/likely-nuclear-terrorist-attack-united-states/p13097
