states has treated restructured more than two counterterrorism organizations for every happened - - appreciation -- apprehension. with a massive enterprise with police and intelligence agencies follow up on 10 million tips the vast majority leads nowhere but in the new book "chasing ghosts" the authors try to answer simple questions. is the chase worth the effort? or is it excessive given the dangers of action represents ? >> another quick thing about the book and those of you that are attending today you are fortunate because we have it for sale and it is priced to sell. $18 for a fine hardcover book. and on top of that it would be happy to sign that. if you are here with us you are fortunate if you're watching on line at home we can find a book and other retailers establishments on line. john mueller is a senior research scientist and a member of the political science department at ohio state university and also my colleague here procopius authored numerous books. with the remnants and terror, a securities and money and has been a john simon guggenheim fellow professor of civil engineering for infrastructure performance at the university of newcastle in australia and also a professorial fellow and again has written more than 300 technical papers and his current work focuses on the quantification of security risk of aviation security and leads the consortium of five universities and mostly for the commonwealth scientific and industrial research and for that i will turn it over to my colleague. >> but we did get together when with the break even analysis then we will talk about now which basically is the beginning of terrorism in the way to deal with that. it is is simply to say rather how many does a security measure half to present with cost-benefit budget in which we analyze the standard cost benefit analysis with the protection of the infrastructure is 1,000 times higher than it is at present. >> day take about 80 percent of domestic security within the united states but they're virtually all private operatives operating within the united states. we kill liftback for the murder went out basically to follow every tip or every lead to. they have a threat to matrix but those that were pretty trivial. but it coming down with a book recently hit it hasn't led to much of anything at all. it is the prodigious amount than the question is, is it worth it? going down after every single tip the. >> as pointing out later it suggests that for the expenditures to be justified they would have to disrupt so the question is if that is the case, is that reasonable? would terrorism has been in the united states? it has been extremely limited but that and said that the hands of the islamist terror is the committee died at the same time like lightning. >> there is the disclosure of the terrace to have been caught with various plots over this period. i did a casebook but those that have come to light that has been perpetrated horror but he pretended into the ecoterrorist. for example, one man is in baltimore said he wanted to be a jihadist but that does not at all unusual. the first response to tell him to stuff it in bin but i need some help to set that up. so that is very typical. it isn't but it seems to be incompetent overall. so the idea that they could get together if you're looking into these cases is very questionable. the guy and baltimore never have gotten around to anything or he would be most likely as a pretty spare red tried to dig chase said down. one is from march 2 has been in the middle of this for many years. he says as a member of the intelligence community to stay abreast of all the plots have not seen any significant plots that have been disrupted and not disclosed on the contrary the government goes out of its way to take the sting operation in brazil i with the transnational threats for many years. i would ask about these reports that were undisclosed and very slender but basically it seems that is very unlikely. [laughter] but the neck stepping it is how about people who have been disrupted but they have not got into a conspiracy but the talk is dangerous. and you can get them simply for saying and i thought to it was thought to crimes because i could see how they would possibly commit a crime. but though whole record is the extent that but then you don't look at this record in particular without that. but if you are the american citizen they legitimately can put that in full but these will be even more embryos to expand the disclosed pods there could have been tried on direct and terrorism charges. it is hard to think that with the whole security apparatus has deterred the tears from attacking it is very difficult. but i am inclined to agree that is very much the case that there are certain targets which are unlikely. for example, to hijack an airliner is incredibly. >> another popular target is military bases. many targets over they want to attack the military bases. because of what you scheerer the chief thing that caused him to radicalizes the u.s. government is killing our innocent civilians taken a stand to see english be punished. we are beginning to rise up. basically hostility to american and foreign policy in the valley east. especially those and i agree from those recruiting stations. but the problem as with insurance if you are dedicated but then they say i will be ed jihadist i will takedown the airliner but i can't so now i want. depending on the other targets they could hit. is hard to use the and that is why they do this. so that deterrence is effective. and the notion that said terrorist, we only catch the stupid ones and smart there so why don't they do something? >> along for the wait the more likely they will be attacked as we found out. the idea of only the dumb ones evading risk but that overall effect is to mount a threat disclosed is quite limited. i only have a minute left but it to talk about public opinion we will come back at this later. the fact we're looking at the trends since an 11 -- 9/11 there all flat if you feel there is another terrorist attack the feel more or less safe using canada states is winning the war but the odds are flat all the way through which is impressive because you think there is some reversion over this period of time. this is before isis. no attacks, no big attacks and still there is no erosion. the conclusion is essentially this kind of terrorism has a spooky for reference namely is long because there is no center but those domestic, is to have the ideology and associated with international movements. even though very little happened, said to be concerned about them in their danger to national security was high. and it did not decline. the other is the witch hunt in europe preclude the alternate spooky adversary is a double and a onetime became convinced witches' lived among us redoing diabolical things. over period a time tens of thousands mostly women were executed in europe now that did fadeaway eventually but it took 200 years so that is a gloomy conclusion. thank you for your attention. [applause] so it comes up time and time again and that's starting equivalent to clearly say with those considerations and if you do that with the worse case now individuals can be risk averse. and they do not have that but they need to be risk neutral. with damage due to cyclones and then to compare apples with apples. 73c dash it so we try to be generous as best we can. so what are the risks? we speak at a lot of conferences where the only ones with the rest in the 45 years one at a 4 million per year. so we felt that was in the backyard is essentially a or it gets smaller. the airline passenger and then what to mean physically to fly every day 68,000 years to be involved in a terrorist attack. look at the risk in the u.s. less than 90 million per year the only ones to talk about the numbers. the threats are evolving as the basis for discussion it is the first point our the risks acceptable? wire they solo? because it isn't very effective? because the threat is quite low? so trying to figure out in a lot more detail the yet nobody wants to know but it is perplexing. ended his tour danger is band-aid terrorist attacks -- but it is 10 times the risk to be struck alive so as a threat to human life, let terrorism is a the west dallas levels we don't like it but we can tolerate. but it is different because it doesn't have the same social and economic impact as you get from terrorism so it is hard to compare if someone dies in cancer or a terrorist attack. this is rather cost-benefit analysis comes into the next up so it gives a simple concept mitt is where the damage is averted and this is where we come to one the creation. end lead the images per year and into expect and then to compare one against the other. end and is also very revealing. we can see have the budgets have gone up with the $3 billion to counterterrorism. maybe tipping the budget is efficient path to be effective against the terrorist threat on the post and 11 very professional and well organized and then plots effect is that 90 percent it could be higher but just through the process. one of them like the boston marathon bombings. with the are risk averse behavior. and quite afraid so the longer ellis' there will be future attacks. so that helps with that equation but we have opportunity cost. so to have that capacity of counterterrorism based on organized crime so that could be another criminal activities. if that was the opportunity cost. cement so we do that breakeven analysis bibelots $5 million so good is the most likely each type the text? so we think chet typical threat to is like the boston bombing so that is about one every two months. the best mentioned most of those in u.s. and though still have a loss of life. so we could argue that $3 million probably not cost-effective. al level of spending and not be the most optimal. and then to get the law of diminishing returns? >> so this a this 3 percent you be spending but when we have a lot more concerned about. as an example the federal service if you would get the other security measures on the flight deck to every dollar you spend you get $10 in benefits. so it just is not cost-effective place the highest cost. and for it to pay for itself. with in the area where there is screening is for passengers as a risk so people can travel through for the screening checkpoint and to increase in future years of risk reduction is a very small change plus passengers are much more happier. that is something to lower cost than security ben finally a happens if u.s. sandoz joliet is not much different had couple of teenagers who lived in the city to capture a king bureau painted it plaque with isis colors and not t the public. [applause] >> a good thing we don't have kangaroos running around the united states. [laughter] it is my pleasure to introduce our commentator. professor at the law center where she teaches courses and writes a weekly column for policy and serves as a senior fellow at the new america foundation. after a two-year public service leave of absence during her time at the defense department she felt this the office and in the lead a major overhaul that the weekly op-ed column is. in the school of law or she taught human rights law and constitutional law. >> is great to be here it is a fantastic book and it is a book i have been wanting for some time because i always try to make myself and my work and i am not particularly good with numbers. he has us stick of banging the rhythmically and finally he says what you doing he said they do it to keep away that tiger. there are no tigers in new york city and then he says he? it works. obviously it is very apropos and with that efficacy of the vast amounts of money better sucked into the department of komen and security and counter terrorism on policing. is this worth it? we are preventing all these terrorist attacks. though we don't see them and they say that is because we are preventing them so it is hard to tell because it is coupled with regrettably i cannot share the evidence because it is classified so you have to trust me that those collected several million people who have to trust their with the a 9/11 n. attacked every day but we have thwarted that. it is amazing we have fallen for this as a nation and. so what is discussed in the book and one day and they have done is comparing this in some ways his day good analogy they painstakingly go to their loan cost-benefit analysis that we're spending a vast amount of money which that is little to show for it you don't go into the question the way counterterrorism they increase the threat we think we're trying to respond to with another can of worms but at a minimum bid is impossible to read the book and not come away thinking we're doing all these irrational things. and the americans our thoroughly convinced of utter nonsense were those that were having orgies in the forest in the middle of the night with a double. and making their crops fail and then burning people at the state could not accomplish anything. of course, the would not. but it makes sense to think of the u.s. coast 9/11 it has nothing to do with with those rituals we hold without any basis to ward off evil. they're all kinds of things we cannot control again scared about the economy our half to seek out and destroy a witch's to feel like we're doing something. it is a form of virtual to a stated ends as a substitute to do anything you small and then it becomes us substitute to do think about the harder issues we might be able to do something about him but they think better than with that frame from the cost-benefit frame. and perhaps it leads to the question and if we wish you sustain in ourselves that this is not just magical thinking over reality based thinking. into care about evidence we have to engage with analysis and it takes courage to write the book we live in a cultured you write a book like this you don't care about the 9/11 dead. and then you will be sorry. indicated as well the unfair for those under killed in car crashes each year has gone down there is some limit it doesn't mean that you don't care though we always make hard choices. you want the government to make sense but not engage in in magical thinking were those this course -- distortions but we're not rational. but yet we are not it is a case study, hundreds of thousands of intelligent people working for all federal agencies have managed to convince themselves to an enterprise that is fundamentally flawed because we are not irrational. wandering up purpose that the purpose is protecting themselves in the american public from the devastating threat to change our minds or policies. and relived the society that they are horrible a risk analysis to panic about peanut allergies or child deductions in the overreact shiseido peonage in any school. we keep children home with all of them go to the park even though it expose is risk because they don't go out to any more. there are all kinds of things but it doesn't bear any particular relationship to the actual risks out there. and america has become more politically fragmented. with the own favorite radio show. which permits us to screen any conflicting information it is tougher and tougher to speak to americans generally to get them to listen in seriously. and to have that status to be developed around the world around us. so my fear is you will read it in to we're wasting a several trillion dollars there are things we can do we have gone overboard despite the fact we will come to that conclusion that most people want to for a walk around saying to our friends and family members and cousins there will go right back to where i started that you have no idea how much worse they may be. it is true there are no tigers. but obviously you're a terrible person and he put your head in the sand event you are a coward. in your book doesn't focus on that and it shouldn't you have a different task it but the broader challenge is this is not dissimilar to let's say we discovered a common taken in vitamin supplement is terribly dangerous so had to convince them not to do it? the only thing that gives me hope thinking to the late '70s and early '80s that was the period that the annual deaths from terrorism was three or four times higher than they are now. and it wasn't because of islamic extremist but the anti-fascist you name it there was said gazillion all over europe which collectively manage to do an enormous amount of damage but europe did not fall apart because the degree of public panic was much lower they and it is now has suggested is not impossible to decide to treat terrorism quite differently as it is horrible there are plenty of things we can and should do but we don't have to let it turn us inside out. but the challenge is how do we break through our collective resistance that will challenge the belief system that turns into a full-fledged system? how do we take new information that will begin to political or policy change? i will end with a question to make sure we have time to discuss that but it is an honor and privilege to talk about it. [applause] >> i will briefly exercise my prerogative as chair to pick up on something in terms of how you respond to the charge they don't care what i like is that individuals can the risk averse to undertake certain risky behavior is bad governments should be risked neutral. those that are fasces at a proportion said carrying about one thing applies not caring about another. to meet this does address the you don't care question but that is halite approached the problem. >> maybe we should say don't you see if we took more money out we could address the neck allergies? [laughter] a couple of ground rules please a for the microphone. please limit yourself to the actual question. no speeches. however visiting researcher from georgetown. the question is hard to fault, to be linked effectiveness to the budget? when we did every far above the budget so if you include gun violence do we increase the budget and more fundamentally how do you quantify what you talk about with the cost and the benefit and to wait in thank you with personal privacy. >> the issue is the good will and what do other countries to? in the u.k. and hired terrorism threat over a much longer period of time to spend on budget gdp basis. and just as effective but as chile and canada we spend one-quarter of gdp and is used to do a fairly fine job as well. sova seems to be excessive. >> with the cost of benefits that will be a challenge. but to go straight at -- fairly straightforward it is indeed accurate at 1% but to give you a good feel was a dead complete waste of money and then say we need to spend more to find out we do include the value of life overseas and it varies different agencies maybe 10 million based on the report in 2010. but most of the losses from terrorism is extremely tragic but most would affect society affects the loss of business there is a lot of flips on the ethics for that so if is the indirect losses dominate the calculations. the number of casualties is not that important whether 20 lives or 100 it is tragic but in terms of the economic loss to society because people decide not to travel. . . at ucla, you can see it is raining in southern california. this is a first in all the years we have covered this festival. we are