The goal of the war on terror is to prevent a new 9/11. In order to achieve this, the preemptive strike has been introduced to tackle the terrorism risk. However, this precisely leads to the increasing unpredictability of terrorism and hence the likelihood of a new 9/11.
Preemption does not help to reduce the terrorism risk, but on the very contrary leads to its increase. The argument will be taken a step further by claiming that, in fact, the war on terror increases the likelihood of catastrophic terrorism, because the risk of terrorism increases as such that terrorists might seek indiscriminate violence not shying away to use weapons of mass destruction. The war on terror therewith turns into a risk paradox - carrying consequences which, arguably, are even more risky than the original risk itself. In order to demonstrate this point, this article applies the concept of risk to terrorist groups and relates it to the paradox implications of the war on terror.