True. But the reason it’s that way is because there are people protecting us and not letting the terrorists from moving to the top. Ignore them and let them acquire a nuclear weapon and you’ll see what I mean. The “risk” is a real RISK. Not just one within quotes.
yes, but the point is that the risk is probably not worth spending as much on as other risks. Even a small nuclear device, which is ridiculously unlikely, would probably not cause as much death as heart disease. Over the past 10 years, 6 million people have died from heart disease, how many have died from terrorism?
I can’t help but feel like pretending we are safer is completely avoiding any intelligent discourse on risk vs. reward or the actual cost of things like DHS. And can’t forget, had we not been so goddamn cocky in an arms race with russia, the likelihood of black market nukes (or the weapons that insurgents are killing our troops with) would have been minimal at best. We are our own worst enemies here, throwing money at the problem and naively pretending we’ve fixed it is the worst thing we can continue to do.
It would be better if it used numbers from countries with less police and military. And if it only including middle east terrorist caused deaths, which is where most of our anti-terrorist money goes, even thought (if I remember correctly) they don’t account for the largest % of terrorist attacks.
Either way, funding a little more education and medical research (not just pharmaceutical companies CEO’s bank accounts) would probably be more beneficial. “Defense” spending is like 30% of our money, while education is like 5% and medical research is less than 1%.
all the “facts”(lol) listed above seem to have things in place to prevent from happening, should we just go about our daily lives in a “fa la la la ” daze and not understand the world we live in today?
True. But the reason it’s that way is because there are people protecting us and not letting the terrorists from moving to the top. Ignore them and let them acquire a nuclear weapon and you’ll see what I mean. The “risk” is a real RISK. Not just one within quotes.
yes, but the point is that the risk is probably not worth spending as much on as other risks. Even a small nuclear device, which is ridiculously unlikely, would probably not cause as much death as heart disease. Over the past 10 years, 6 million people have died from heart disease, how many have died from terrorism?
I can’t help but feel like pretending we are safer is completely avoiding any intelligent discourse on risk vs. reward or the actual cost of things like DHS. And can’t forget, had we not been so goddamn cocky in an arms race with russia, the likelihood of black market nukes (or the weapons that insurgents are killing our troops with) would have been minimal at best. We are our own worst enemies here, throwing money at the problem and naively pretending we’ve fixed it is the worst thing we can continue to do.
Uh, I’m guessing the car and airplane statistics got switched…
It would be better if it used numbers from countries with less police and military. And if it only including middle east terrorist caused deaths, which is where most of our anti-terrorist money goes, even thought (if I remember correctly) they don’t account for the largest % of terrorist attacks.
Either way, funding a little more education and medical research (not just pharmaceutical companies CEO’s bank accounts) would probably be more beneficial. “Defense” spending is like 30% of our money, while education is like 5% and medical research is less than 1%.
all the “facts”(lol) listed above seem to have things in place to prevent from happening, should we just go about our daily lives in a “fa la la la ” daze and not understand the world we live in today?