Good to know

Via Bruce Schneier.

The terrorist risk is low in the U.S. compared to the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and even Europe:

According to the index, which ranks world cities by the likelihood of a terror attack based on historic trends, 64 cities around the world are at “extreme risk” of a terror attack.

Of these, the majority are in the Middle East (27) or Asia (19).

Some 14 are in Africa, where the rise of Boko Haram and al-Shabaab as well as political instability have increased risk.

Three are in Europe – Luhansk (46) and Donetsk (56) in Ukraine, and Grozy (54) in Russia – while Colombia’s Cali (59) is the only South American city on the list.

The British city most at risk of terror attacks in Belfast (91), followed by Bristol (178), Cardiff (313), Manchester (398) and London (400).


According to Verisk Maplecroft, Paris (97th and ‘high risk’) has experienced one of the steepest rises in the ranking, reflecting the severity of the terrorist attack in January 2015 that left 17 people dead. The risk level in Paris is representative of a wider trend for Western countries, including Belgium, Canada and Australia, where the level of risk in key urban centres is substantially higher than elsewhere in the country, in part due to the significant PR value attached to such high profile targets by militant Islamist groups.

I know someone leaving for South America soon and it’s good to know they probably won’t have terrorist issues on top of the high crime rate risks.


5 thoughts on “Good to know

  1. And all those places have strict victim disarmament laws, don’t they?

  2. What about the unknown risks? Can’t factor those in, can you? That’s what SEC DEF under Bush 43 meant when he said; “We don’t yet know what we don’t yet know” and got lambasted for it by the idiot Progressives.

    This sort of reminds me of the antigunners’/low information voters’ ridiculous meme;
    “Why would you carry a gun in (THAT particular place)?!!!”

    Because the unexpected tends to happen when you’re, uh, NOT expecting it? If I were actually EXPECTING trouble (in THAT particular place) I wouldn’t go there, armed or otherwise.

    Because carrying a gun is a decision, NOT based on particular, specific threats or the likelihoods thereof, but on principle, because “I choose to be armed” is NOT the same thing as, “I choose to armed, here, in this specific place, to counter this specific, existential threat”.

    Same goes for national, or regional, security. By the time you get around to EXPECTING an attack, you’re rather late (and lacking in ability and/or principles) in dealing with the problem.

    Besides; if your enemy is clever at all, he’ll make you expect an attack somewhere, at some time, of some nature, and then carry out an attack somewhere else at some other time, of some other nature, etc., or he’ll lull you into a state of complacency, distraction, and so on, which is of course, for example, why the national conversation is about race relations and gay weddings and other fabricated “issues”.

    • A good answer to “why would you carry a gun there” is “why would you wear a seatbelt there”.

  3. Lyle, indeed. I like the way one former SF guy put it:

    “I don’t carry a handgun so I can get into situations I wouldn’t get into if I didn’t have it,
    I carry one so I can get out of situations I couldn’t get out of if I didn’t have it.”

Comments are closed.