Lesson: Don’t waste too much energy worrying about terrorism, because it is a relatively minor threat unless terrorists get nuclear weapons. Similarly, military warfare is an increasingly remote possibility in the modern world.
In recent decades, fear of terrorism has gripped the world, ignited wars, and shaped politics—and that’s by design. With the exception of outliers like 9/11, most acts of terrorism kill very few people; far more people die in traffic accidents or from diabetes. As the name suggests, terrorism is meant primarily to incite terror, but it generally causes little physical damage.
In an attack, most military strategists aim to destroy the enemy’s most powerful weapons and essential resources, in order to handicap any retaliation. However, terrorists don’t have the power to inflict such damage, so their attacks often do little to harm their enemies’ weapons, equipment, and infrastructure. Due to their weakness in resources and manpower, terrorists’ only hope is to aggravate the enemy so much that it overreacts, and that the overreaction creates enough chaos and instability that the power balance tips in the terrorists’ favor. In other words, terrorists instigate their enemies to cause the damage that the terrorists don’t have the strength to create.
A terrorist is like a fly that wants to destroy a china shop. The fly isn’t strong enough to tip anything over, so when a bull enters the china shop, the fly buzzes in its ear until the bull starts thrashing and causing destruction. The 9/11 terrorists were flies that buzzed in America’s ear and caused mass fear and confusion. In an effort to calm the public’s fears, America responded with a show of power and strength by declaring a War on Terror, in which it thrashed through the Middle East. America’s efforts ultimately destabilized the Middle East and created space for the terrorists to seize more power.
Terrorism is only effective because citizens of the United States and other centralized countries are unaccustomed to political violence. Before modern times, political violence was a fact of life in most of the world: Individuals and groups gained political power only through violent force. As the centuries passed, many governments were able to reduce and nearly eradicate political violence, to the point that their citizens came to expect protection from such violence in daily life. This shift had two effects that made terrorism a viable strategy:
Terrorism causes public fear, which pushes the government to prove its power and defend its authority, and that generally amounts to an overreaction—which plays right into the terrorists’ hands. In fact, the safer a country is and the less political violence it experiences, the more vulnerable it is to falling victim to terrorism. Instead of overreacting, governments should understand that terrorists don’t have enough power to do much harm, as long as government officials keep their cool and make prudent decisions.
In order to effectively fight terrorism, nations must respond on three fronts:
Although terrorists are only a minor threat now, they could become exponentially more dangerous if they obtain nuclear weapons, or if they launch cyberterrorism or bioterrorism attacks. If those scenarios happen, the terrorists will not only create a spectacle but also cause serious damage, and the government would need to take stronger action to meet the level of danger.
In the meantime, the government and the public must be careful to distinguish the real current threat of terrorists from the potential future threat of terrorists. America’s War on Terror serves as a cautionary tale of what can happen when a powerful country overreacts: Not only did years of war create mass destruction in the Middle East, it also wasted trillions of dollars that could have gone to more constructive efforts, such as fighting climate change and researching treatments and cures for diseases.
Despite the rise in terrorism, the last few decades have been the most peaceful in the history of humankind. Throughout much of history, war was a necessary means of nations’ growth. National powers violently conquered other territories in pursuit of land, capital, manpower, control of trade, and geopolitical status. However, military wars in which soldiers battle on the ground (or at sea or in the air) in order to raise their nation’s economic prosperity and global power are largely extinct.
Whereas the most valuable economic assets used to be physical—such as land, gold, and goods—modern wealth is information and technology, which are impossible to capture through war. Additionally, many nations are reluctant to instigate war for various reasons, such as:
Despite recent peaceful times and the declining returns of war, international tensions have been building since the 2008 financial crisis. Still, war is not inevitable. The world might be moving past warfare, since the Cold War proved that conflicts can be resolved without fatalities. Today, most successful countries have improved their geopolitical status by improving their economies rather than their militaries.
On the other hand, it’s foolish to underestimate the potential for war. Despite the declining benefits of war, human emotion can always factor into leaders’ decisions. Given how complicated the world is, even seemingly rational decisions can lead to stupid actions. Additionally, anticipating war makes war more likely, because it causes countries to increase their troops, bulk up their arms supplies, and act less cooperatively and more suspiciously in international relations—all of this not only prepares for war, but is also likely to instigate it.
The only successful conquest by a major global power in the 21st century was Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea. Part of the reason for Russia’s success was that Ukraine did little to resist, and no other country directly intervened. Russia wisely waged a limited war: It targeted a fairly weak nation and limited its attack to avoid embroiling any other countries. In fact, after its success in Crimea, Russia tried to attack other regions of Ukraine, but it failed in the face of tougher resistance.
Although Russia’s war raised its geopolitical position, it also raised international animosity and distrust of Russia. Additionally, the venture was an economic loss for the country overall. By contrast, during the same period, China greatly increased its economic prosperity without any international conflicts.
For most nations in the world, the prospect of war is unappealing and probably promises more losses than rewards. However, if world leaders follow Russia’s lead—or find another means of waging successful wars in a modern context—the damage could be unprecedented.