I've been seeing some discussion online on whether the 9/11 attacks or the Jan 6th insurrection was 'worse' (whatever that means) for the US. I suppose it's inevitable since we now have plenty of adults that didn't experience 9/11 first-hand, similar to how I only know about the Kennedy assassination from learning about it, and they only knew about what it was like to experience the attack at Pearl Harbor from their parents, etc. Here's my attempt at a comparison of the two:
I don't necessarily agree or disagree that the Jan. 6th insurrection was worse than 9/11, it's a complex question. 9/11 was absolutely a huge emotional shock to the nation. It was unexpected and out of the blue (even though it wasn't even the first time Islamic terrorists had [attacked the Twin Towers](https://www.history.com/news/world-trade-center-bombing-1993-facts)), and shook the nation to its core. But in terms of raw statistics, the initial initial human cost boils down to just under 3K lives (plus ~340 more for first responders, etc. that have later died of cancer and other complications).
Economic costs were relatively small on a national scale: the buildings in Manhattan, airlines companies taking a huge blow, and a dip on the economy that recovered quickly. The Lehman shock in 2008 was orders of magnitude bigger than that.
But the costs due to US's response? Absolutely mind-blowing. The 20 year war on terror - which is the US's direct response to the 9/11 attacks - cost [8 *trillion* USD and 900K deaths](https://www.brown.edu/news/2021-09-01/costsofwar). Talk about disproportionate response! And the overall outcome can hardly be considered to be a success either: the Middle East is more unstable and more radicalized than before 9/11.
Despite all this though, the US was *never* under any serious threat in terms of its existence. The 9/11 attacks were terrorism in it's purest sense: their goal was to frighten us and make us terrified, and goad the US into an extreme and costly response. In terms of a cost/benefit ratio, the attacks at 9/11 were arguably *the* most successful military action in human history. Don't take my word for it, take it from [Osama bin Laden himself](https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/september-11th/911-accomplished-every-goal-that-osama-bin-laden-w) in 2004:
> All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.
> This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.
I don't think Osama bin Laden and the Mujahidin can claim sole responsibility for the USSR's failure in Afghanistan (lots of global politics and economics involved there), but they were phenomenally successful in keeping them, and later the US, bogged down indefinitely in the Middle East until they tuck their tail between their legs and go back home. Disappointing, yes, and a huge economic cost, but for the US it was not at all a direct existential threat.
Derek Bassett, [9/12/2024 12:44 PM]
Jan 6th has some similarities and differences. Again the initial cost in terms of actual human lives or economic damage is very small: about 10 people dead, which is 300 times less than 9/11. The direct economic cost is really just the cost to repair the damage to the capital building, which is below rounding error on the national economy scale. Make no mistake though: it was an attempt to overthrow the US constitution and government. Fortunately for us it was poorly planned and executed. But it's intention was clear: if the mob had gotten to Nancy Pelosi or Mike Pence, they almost certainly would have been lynched. Trump and his cronies very clearly were trying to undermine the election in order to keep him in power. Their failure to do so is partly because the mob was poorly organized and not well-armed, but most significantly is because the Joint Chiefs of Staff [made absolutely sure](https://www.csis.org/analysis/joint-chiefs-january-6-2021-riot-washington) that the military did not get involved, esp. on the side of Trump. After all, it's hard to have a military coup when the military refuses to get involved.
If it had succeeded though, it would have essentially ended democracy in the United States. *That* is an existential threat. But it's hard to compare the two directly because 9/11 was well-planned, near perfectly executed, and an unmitigated success, while 1/6 was poorly planned, poorly executed, and a failure. But the *goals* of the 1/6 insurrection were much more dangerous for the US than the attacks at 9/11 were.
