What is Sphere?
AOL News has big aspirations. Sphere is a preview of what's to come. Check us out.

Inside Sphere

Can Terrorist Strikes Be Predicted?

Posted:
11/5/09

(Nov. 5) -- An elite group of scientists who advise the government on national security issues has issued a harsh critique of attempts to predict 9/11-type attacks. There is "no credible approach that has been documented to date" for predicting terrorist or weapons of mass destruction attacks," the group concluded in a study obtained by the Federation of American Scientists.

That statement may seem glaringly obvious to some, but it counters the Pentagon's predeliction for funding social scientists to come up with models that predict the future. The critical study was performed by JASON, a little-known group of academics who counsel the Pentagon and other agencies on science issues.

The report does not mention by name any of a number of ongoing Defense Department projects to build predictive models of various sorts. The Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for example, funds a program called the Integrated Crisis Warning System that "seeks to develop a comprehensive, integrated, automated, generalizable, and validated system to monitor, assess, and forecast national, sub-national, and international crises..." Another Pentagon office funds a program called "Human, Social, Cultural, & Behavioral Modeling," which also looks at ways to forecast behavior.


ALT
Louis Lanzano, AP

A paramedic treats mock victims during an emergency preparedness drill in New York.

The JASON report focuses on models that purport to forecast specific, or "rare" events, such as the 9/11attacks. But its central conclusion can be generalized to other types of forecasting. "It is surprisingly difficult to evaluate models, more specifically quantitative models, reliably," the JASON note in the report. "The problem is that at any given time, it is only possible to evaluate a model against events that have happened."

In other words, predicting events after they happen is easy; it's predicting them ahead of time that's hard.

The JASON report underscores the difference between predicting events -- which it considers impossible -- and assessing risk. The group wrote that "another 9/11-scale event in the world is unlikely but not improbable in the next ten years." But what are the chances of another such event happening, according to the group?

They took a stab at that one at least: 7 percent.




Follow Sphere On Facebook and Twitter

Sharon Weinberger- 

Sharon Weinberger, a national security reporter based in Washington, has been a contributor for Wired's Danger Room, and has written for Nature, Discover, The Financial Times and Slate.

Contact Sharon Weinberger

Subscribe to: RSS Email: Sharon Weinberger

Add your comments

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.

Avoid hate speech, foul language or a disrespectful tone in your comments. Unwanted comments will be deleted at the discretion of the moderator.

 
 
 

Sphere Team

Senior Washington Correspondent
World Editor
Senior Correspondent
Full Team >>
 
 
  • Happening Right Now

     
 
(Nov. 5) -- An elite group of scientists who advise the government on national security issues has issued a harsh critique of attempts to predict
News Logo