Statistically speaking, if something happens somewhere, there should be a lower chance of it happening right?

 

For example, after that big earthquake in Osaka some years ago, Osaka would probably pretty safe to visit, because you wouldn't expect another big Earthquake. Similary, if a place has been terrorist bombed, then immediately following the incident, the place should be very safe. (although there was plans for a second attack, but it failed - because it wasn't statistically viable yet ) Would any of you hesitate to go to London today?

From a simple probability standpoint, let's say you roll a die and get a 2, the next time you roll the die you have an equal chance of rolling a 2 as the first. Simple probability doesn't apply to the examples you gave because the events themselves have an effect on the system.

Well exactly, that's what I'm saying. If simple probability of independent events applied, then it wouldn't matter how many times a place gets bombed, the probability of it getting bombed will still be the same. But because the bombing has an effect on the future outcome, once a place gets bombed, it becomes "safer". So for those of you living in not-yet but nonetheless potential bomb sites, you are at more risk.

it has no effect on future outcome.

and the earthquake idea isn`t strictly fair, the reason it would become unlikely to happen soon after is that the built up pressure that made it occur the 1`st time, would have dropped. with bombings there are many more factors at work (people and politics for instance) non are truly "Random" events and cannot be compared to Dice rolling or maybe even lightening strikes.

you simply cannot compare the two.

But because the bombing has an effect on the future outcome, once a place gets bombed, it becomes "safer". So for those of you living in not-yet but nonetheless potential bomb sites, you are at more risk.

Why do you think it becomes safer, rather than more dangerous?

I guess the explanation from a statistical point of view was not so clear, but what you see here is that London before the bombings was considered "safe" right? After the bombings, we would naturally associate the event happening to the probability that it will happen again. But is this relationship true? Because they bombed New York, does that make New York anymore dangerous than a less suspecting city, say Philadelphia? Due to increased security it may be less an ideal target for terrorists who could target something somewhere else. I don't know how to put this together, but given a fair game of worldwide bombing, there must be a statistical model that shows that the bombings will spread out rather than be focused on just one city.

It could be true that tighter security after a bombing may make the place safer but if the government is good then that tighter security should be applied in the first place.

 

Also, if you get a heads five times in a row, that doesn't mean that the likelihood of a tails is higher on the sixth throw. It's still .5. So assuming that terrorist attacks are independent trials like coin flips, then watch for gambler's fallacy.

If an area gets bomb one time then its obviously a target and thus is more likely to get bombed than an area that isn't a target.

 

London was already prettty safe before this and I think it still is to some extent. But it certainly isn't more safe now then it was two years ago.

But that 'feeling of safety' (given by postattack-ultrasecurity) make the security function decrease rapidly. I think that terrorist attack make a place 'locally' more safety (in a epsilon-interval of time)

Similary, if a place has been terrorist bombed, then immediately following the incident, the place should be very safe.

 

I presume you are excluding the terrorist bombings that occur in the Middle East and Israel almost daily.

This thread should be in Politics, or some such place. Terrorist bombings are not independent events, and even modeling them as such does not give rise to a reduced probability of repetition. So, what is being discussed here are the governmental and sociological responses to a terror event, and their likely effects on a repeat attempt.

I presume you are excluding the terrorist bombings that occur in the Middle East and Israel almost daily.

 

maybe in the analysis we should consider the probability of a person to be a possible 'attacker'... the extreme case: a war

If your worried about getting bombed then I'd suggest you move to the south pole? It never has been bombed and I can't think of any reason why any major goverment terrorist orginistaion would want to attack it so I say that the odds of it getting bombed are less than 1 in a thousand (although obviously you moving there would affect that).