And this is where the scientists jump the tracks. They have no way of knowing a dam in Idaho is in the dreams of terrorists, but there's quite a bit of evidence, if they have taken the time to read materials from various terror trials, that it probably is not. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that many jihadi terrorists, even if told about Lucky Peak Dam and the pitiful local emergency response, wouldn't know how to destroy such a considerable public work without extensive planning and access to demolition expertise and materials. They've shown no sign of such a capability since 9/11. Perhaps one could employ acetone peroxide bombs or drive one's jeep into the entrance of the dam powerhouse, then set oneself afire?

No such story on terror research is complete without someone asking if publicizing such a research paper as Piegorsch's is a good idea. "Some critics have questioned whether statistical research about America's more vulnerable places should be so easily accessible..." reported the Times .

"The bad guys have figured this out already," claimed the head boffin, again showing that while he may know a lot about statistics, one could make the counter argument that the man greatly overestimates what "the bad guys" have figured out or can figure out. Since 9/11, this has been a common trope peddled by a broad variety of anti-terror experts. The terrorists always have stuff figured out and when coupled with another canard, the one that states that it's easy to carry out any kind of mayhem, one can begin to go about the job of assigning global fragilities and vulnerabilities without interference.

Terrorists? We got 'em

The Risk Analysis vulnerability study comes up with its selection of cities by relying on a terrorism database of incidents from 1970-2004, created by the scientists from information on US terror compiled at two sources: the Terrorism Knowledge Base and the US Department of Justice. A quick gander at the Terrorism Knowledge Base shows the US awash in terror incidents, almost all of them carried out by American crazies. The great majority of these events are less terrifying than local gang crime in inner city USA. In fact, in the last two years, arsonists motivated by the fire season in southern California have probably caused more property damage and suburban displacement than all of the terrorists in the US section of the TKB combined.

But disasters like wildfires and terror incidents are apples and oranges, eh? Indeed they are and a risk analysis can also evaluate which of the two a nation or society is more vulnerable to by employing common sense or the studious lack of it. The latter has been shown to be something of the preferred analytical tool in the US during the last five years.

"To put this [report] into practical perspective, suppose city officials in... Charleston, SC, or Norfolk, VA, were considering new forms of coastal antiterrorist protection," the authors write. (One of their conclusions is that coastal cities in the eastern USA and on the Great Lakes trend higher in terror vulnerability.) "This could motivate increased funding allocation(s)..." So an alternative interpretation is that it's good business to have a bad score.

The paper also includes a map of US vulnerability to terror nicely color-coded in red (bad), yellow (caution) and green (OK). Of course, since this is all now available on-line the terrorists have already downloaded it and someone in Karachi or Lahore must be making plans for where we least expect it, not Boise, but the previously thought to be terror-safe border between eastern California and western Nevada. ®

George Smith is a senior fellow at GlobalSecurity.org, a defense affairs think tank and public information group. At Dick Destiny, he blogs his way through chemical, biological, and nuclear terror hysteria, often by way of the contents of neighbourhood hardware stores.