It's been over 4 years now and
we still don't have our shit together on homeland security. I wonder why? Oh yeah, incompetence. Anyway, the report card does have this snippet of interest on one of our failing grades:
Allocate homeland security funds based on risk -- F
Congress has still not changed the underlying statutory authority for homeland security grants, or benchmarks to insure that funds are used wisely. As a result, homeland security funds continue to be distributed without regard for risk, vulnerability, or the consequences of an attack, diluting the national security benefits of this important program.This is true, if you look at how homeland security funding is distributed it is very porky:

Why do states Wyoming get homeland security money
at all? The only states that should get the cash should be states with unsecured borders and major cities. No one is going to bomb Jackson Hole. Trust me, I've been there, no one would notice.
Source:
Homeland Security Department 2005 estimated total allocations to the individual states divided by the
U.S. Census Bureau's 2004 state population estimates.
3 Comments:
Riiiight. And the nuclear missiles spread out over Wyoming and North Dakota aren't of any interest to bad guys?
A lack of tall buildings and/or dense population centers don't necessarily make a state any less of a target.
1:22 AM, June 22, 2006
Well, what if terrorists try to activate the dormant supervolcano underneath Yellowstone? (http://www.exitmundi.nl/terrorism.htm)
4:46 AM, June 24, 2006
Hey Darth, sorry, you're retarded.
The Department of Homeland security does not exist to provide security to military installations. In fact, if they showed up on a ICBM base they would probably be escorted out at gunpoint just like anyone else.
Homeland security exists to provide additional support to vulnerable civilian structures. The military can take care of itself quite well.
Now if you had mentioned chemical plants in these states...
1:07 AM, June 26, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home