login
Are we spending too much to fight terrorism?
-
No new posts
 2011-09-09 2:57 PM |
Pro  6767      the Alabama part of Pennsylvania |  Subject: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism?Slate has an interesting series this week, with an article today on the breakdown of what we are spending and the "break even" point. On the one hand, we would have to be preventing several major attacks each day to make it cost-effective. This makes me think of how we won the cold war - forcing the Soviet Union to bankrupt itself trying to keep up with us - only this time, WE are the soviets (and try not to think about the parallel with being in Afghanistan as a contributing factor...). And at a time when Washington is paralyzed with even relatively straightforward decisions affecting the economy, should we be spending this much money on "security theater"? OTOH, it seems to me that all that money should (could?) be paying SOMEONE salaries. Could we save the economy not by cutting out that spending, but spreading it around more to pay more salaries? I am thinking of a sort of Civilian Conservation Corps re-do, but with the focus on security/terrorism jobs, not trails and shelters. It is just a very rough idea in my own thinking as this point, but with record unemployment and no real prospects in sight until outsourcing is more expensive than paying Americans, how else can we bring jobs to Americans? |
| 2011-09-09 3:12 PM in reply to: #3679672 |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? Fear wins elections. The U.S. has drawn back on some of its spending -- esp. overseas military deployments. But we still spend a lot of money on ineffective measures. Read some of Bruce Schneier's comments on airline security, for example: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/06/fixing_airport.html
Edit: OTOH, it seems to me that all that money should (could?) be paying SOMEONE salaries. A lot of that money IS paying salaries (military, CIA, TSA, you name it). The question is: are we safer for it? Edited by spudone 2011-09-09 3:13 PM |
| 2011-09-10 8:29 AM in reply to: #3679672 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? Of course we are spending too much but the alternatives are worse. Surrender/relent to the will of radical Islam. Nuclear Weapons combined with a total police state.
|
| 2011-09-10 9:05 AM in reply to: #3679672 |
Pro 4909 Hailey, ID | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? I think it's hard/impossible to measure what we have prevented, not to mention what is classified that we don't know about. I also wonder what we don't know. (puts on tin foil cap). Here we have President Obama, ready to come into office, close Gitmo, get out of Iraq etc and turn Bush policy on it's head to appease his voters and party. Then he gets into office and non of those things happen. Perhaps after becoming President he learns some things that change his mind? |
| 2011-09-11 9:11 PM in reply to: #3679672 |
Champion 6931 Bellingham, Washington | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? I was amazed at what happened to the Israeli embassy in Cairo...reminds me of 1979 Tehran. I sure hope the UN sanctions the Egyptians for their actions. |
| 2011-09-11 9:30 PM in reply to: #3679672 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? Why? Who do you think is taking control of Egypt? I suspect it is the same as who will take charge of Libya. Next year we will have 2 new partners with Iran. This is a great example of taking sides in a fight before having any idea who is fighting for what. |
| 2011-09-12 5:34 AM in reply to: #3681677 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? CBarnes - 2011-09-11 9:30 PM Why? Who do you think is taking control of Egypt? I suspect it is the same as who will take charge of Libya. Next year we will have 2 new partners with Iran. This is a great example of taking sides in a fight before having any idea who is fighting for what.
Can you say Caliphate?
|
| 2011-09-12 8:27 AM in reply to: #3679672 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? This is the standard progress of thought when it comes to security, of any type. Whenever an event occurs, the call goes up for increased security, so we start to spend money (We being any entity, be it government, corporate, whatever). The people responsible for providing security do their best to take the last event, extrapolate out and find potential weaknesses. At this point, it becomes a trade-off between cost to protect against a threat and the probability and likelihood of the event. So, security measures are implemented based on those decisions. After a while, when no events occur, the interest in security begins to wane, and then budget season comes around again. So, budget makers look at costs, and start to wonder if the spending is justified. Of course, how can you really make that decision? Most budget makers like to see a ROI on budget items, but how can you determine what the ROI is on security spending? In the end, budgets get reduced, security gets reduced, and it becomes a waiting game until something new happens. It's an ongoing, probably never-ending cycle. |
| 2011-09-12 11:45 AM in reply to: #3679672 |
Supersonicus Idioticus 2439 Thunder Bay, ON | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? War economy. It gets you out of recessions. |
| 2011-09-12 1:17 PM in reply to: #3681824 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? NXS - 2011-09-12 5:34 AM CBarnes - 2011-09-11 9:30 PM Why? Who do you think is taking control of Egypt? I suspect it is the same as who will take charge of Libya. Next year we will have 2 new partners with Iran. This is a great example of taking sides in a fight before having any idea who is fighting for what.
Can you say Caliphate? Yes but I can not spell it. |
| 2011-09-12 1:36 PM in reply to: #3681824 |
Runner | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? NXS - 2011-09-12 6:34 AM CBarnes - 2011-09-11 9:30 PM Why? Who do you think is taking control of Egypt? I suspect it is the same as who will take charge of Libya. Next year we will have 2 new partners with Iran. This is a great example of taking sides in a fight before having any idea who is fighting for what.
Can you say Caliphate?
The people who will "take control" of Egypt are the ones who have always been in the control, specifically the military. The reason why they went along with the overthrow of Mubarak was due to the fact that he wanted to change the system, and eliminate the way he got into power (by putting his son in charge). This change was anathema to the ruling military, so they let him be removed. Libya is still up in the air, as near as I can tell. But, I don't see Iran being a major player there. Besides, even if they are, I don't think it will lead to any sort of Caliphate, especially considering the internal disputes within Iran's own governing bodies. |
| 2011-09-12 2:45 PM in reply to: #3679672 |
Expert 838 West Palm Beach, FL | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? Do you include the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq in the total for fighting terrorism? If so, then yes we are overspending considerably and have been most of the past decade. If you only count the cost of domestic and foreign intelligence, diplomacy and foreign aid/ payoffs to countries we rely on for assistence, then I think we're getting close to fair value. |
| 2011-09-12 2:51 PM in reply to: #3679672 |
| Expert 691 Cape Elizabeth, Maine | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? I am sure if we just left them alone they would go back home to their families and we would all be safe. |
| 2011-09-12 9:14 PM in reply to: #3679672 |
Master 2447 White Oak, Texas | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? SHOCKER!! Libya could fall into the hands of Islamic extremists!!!!!! Wow who could have ever thought!! If only we had the foresight to provide them with some aide. Oh we did Naval Air Power! Edited by CBarnes 2011-09-12 9:14 PM |
| 2011-09-12 10:23 PM in reply to: #3679672 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Are we spending too much to fight terrorism? I read the article. Interesting points. Tough to dispute the argument. However, Homeland Security is an emotional issue for most and presenting a logical argument against overspending isn't going to win votes. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK