Scale Invariance in Global Terrorism

Click For Summary
Clauset and Young's recent paper analyzes a database of terrorist attacks, revealing that extreme incidents like 9/11 fit into a scale-free power distribution with an exponent around 2, suggesting that similar attacks could occur within the next seven years. They highlight that advancements in technology and increasing global population contribute to the rising lethality of attacks. The discussion proposes several potential solutions to mitigate future threats, including promoting prosperity and democracy, leveraging biotechnology for rapid detection of biological weapons, and the possibility of a globally regulated state controlling scientific research in sensitive areas. However, concerns are raised about the effectiveness of such measures, especially in light of threats like liquefied natural gas transport, which could lead to significant explosions. The conversation emphasizes the ongoing challenge of balancing technological advancement with security and regulation.
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
6,843
Reaction score
11
Clauset and Young, in their new paper http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0502/0502014.pdf , apply standard modern statistics to a database of terrorist strikes ordered by the number of people killed or injured. They find that extreme cases, such as 9/11, are not outliers, but find their place within a scale free power distribution with exponent near 2 (may actually be nearer 1.8). From this they conclude another strike with as many casualties or more than 9/11 can be expected within the next 7 years.

They remark that the ability to kill people has been steadily increasing, which may underly this scale free behavior. I note that scale free or "critical" behavior in many systems is associated with the approach to a change of state.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, advancing technology makes WMDs easies to manufacture. More people mean more potential terrorists and conflicts. Global news and democracy means that the potential reward has increased.

I see some possible solutions:
1. Greater prosperity and more democracy. Democracies never or almost never attack each other. Poverty is one the factors that make people into fanatics. Look for example at the great depression that may have been critical in causing fascist dictatorships in Germany and Japan.

2. Fight technology with technology. Biotechnology might allow very rapid detection of biological weapons and production of antidotes.

3. A worldwide intrusive state. If the above fail and there are great catastrophes due to terrorism or wars, then many might see strict control of science worldwide as inevitable. Research, laboratories, education and knowledge in biotechnology and nuclear physics might become a strictly regulated worldwide state monopoly.
 
Aquamarine said:
Research, laboratories, education and knowledge in biotechnology and nuclear physics might become a strictly regulated worldwide state monopoly.
That might not help much. One of the greatest terrorist threats facing advanced nations today comes in the form of natural gas. A single liquified natural gas tanker would make a pretty big explosion.
http://www.google.com/search?q=terrorist+%22natural+gas%22+tanker
 
hitssquad said:
That might not help much. One of the greatest terrorist threats facing advanced nations today comes in the form of natural gas. A single liquified natural gas tanker would make a pretty big explosion.
http://www.google.com/search?q=terrorist+%22natural+gas%22+tanker
Well, then science has to find a better way to transport the natural gas. Or avoid using it.

But I agree that new technology will constantly make it easier to produce WMDs. So if 3 is chosen, this means that an ever increasing part of science and technology will be censored and monopolized by the state.
 
To some degree, this thread is inspired by PF user erobz's thread "Why do we spend so much time learning grammar in the public school system?" That's why I made a title to this thread that paralleled the title of erobz's thread. I totally disagree with erobz. I created this thread because the curriculum of grammar at Universities is a totally distinct topic from the topic of the curriculum of grammar in public schools. I have noticed that the English grammar of many ( perhaps most)...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
7K
  • · Replies 133 ·
5
Replies
133
Views
27K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K