by Rick Lowe
This earlier blog pointed to the September discussion at Cato Unbound reassessing where the US is at on their security issues.
The discussion in very interesting and is caped off quite appropriately, in this bloggers not-so-humble opinion, by Veronique de Rugy in her follow up piece entitled The Case for Doing Nothing. Click here to read the entire piece.
Here are couple interesting snippets:
"...considering the low probability event of a terrorist attack, and considering the fact that we don't know what form it will take or where it will happen, it is likely that the most cost effective measure is to do nothing and then spend money to clean up and compensate the victims after the fact. In other words, rather than protecting all targets or even few targets with a high probability of failing, we should spend money mitigating the consequences of the attack. Of course, at the same time, the federal government should try its best to catch terrorists, dismantle networks, and collect intelligence on future plots."
"In my mind there is only one case where we might deviate from the "do nothing" policy. I say “might” because I am not a security expert and I might actually be wrong about it. However, if I am not, it is consistent with our overall theory since it directs some resources to prevent against one type of attack, which, if successfully implemented, would have dramatic consequences. I am talking about a successful nuclear attack inside the U.S. I believe that even though the probability of a terrorist nuclear attack in the U.S. is extremely low, the consequence would be so devastating that it would be a good idea to do something about it."Her conclusion is particularly lucid. Don't miss it.
Further reading:
Professor Bernard Lewis on Freedom and Justice in Islam in Imprimis a Hillsdale College publication.
