tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post112653154926864065..comments2024-03-06T05:30:41.694-05:00Comments on Pho's Akron Pages: 9/11 Changed EverythingScott Piephohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05849171870929674248noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1126581489281877172005-09-12T23:18:00.000-04:002005-09-12T23:18:00.000-04:00OK, at the risk of turning this blog into "Pho tal...OK, at the risk of turning this blog into "Pho talks to his brother," a couple of points.<BR/><BR/>I would hope that Schneier believes in spending outside intelligence and preparedness, but when he says "Our nation needs to spend its homeland security dollars on two things: intelligence-gathering and emergency response," it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.<BR/><BR/>Second, the point about nukes and chemical plants is that, unlike, say, subway bombings, these are big-ticket disasters. Recall that Bhopal killed between 5000 and 15,000 people depending on whose figures you believe. <BR/><BR/>The Chemical plant issue is also interesting in that a bunch of new plant-hardening standard were proposed that would have put most of the burden on the chemical industry, prompting them to launch a lobbying blitz against the standards. The Bush Admin quickly caved. Who knows what the actual cost-benefit analysis of the proposals would show, but the only analysis done weighed the cost of pissing off a major industry and the benefit of staying in office.Scott Piephohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05849171870929674248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1126552638831722992005-09-12T15:17:00.000-04:002005-09-12T15:17:00.000-04:00Followup to myself: Oh, and I see in looking at t...Followup to myself: Oh, and I see in looking at the map more carefully that some of the nuclear plants listed are shut down. Of course, it would take lots more research to find which of them are still dangerous if blown up.<BR/><BR/>Also, about port security, I was just thinking about this today: How much harder would it be right now (and in this context, right now means for the next year at least) implement any meaningful port security, as 2 of the busiest ports in the nation were wiped by Katrina (Gulfport and Katrina), overburdening those still functioning and creating LOTS of economic pressure to get stuff through as soon as possible.k-phohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03106855659965117145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13368104.post-1126552204761784922005-09-12T15:10:00.000-04:002005-09-12T15:10:00.000-04:00OK, k-pho it is. About the Schneier thing, I don'...OK, k-pho it is. About the Schneier thing, I don't think he's saying that intelligence and emergency response are the only places you spend money, I think he's saying that they are better places to spend money than nearly every initiative brought out by the current administration, esp. the untold gobs spent in Iraq. <BR/><BR/>His meta-point is that security decisions always involve tradeoffs. Sometimes (OK, LOTS of times) they are security vs. liberty tradeoffs (cameras in subways) Sometimes they are security vs. economics (such as inspecting shipping containers) or any number of other things. And there are ALWAYS budgetary tradeoffs: any money spent could have been spent on something else.<BR/><BR/>To buy into a policy because "It COULD prevent a terrorist attack" is counterproductive or worse. You need to evaluate it against what you are trading off against.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm tempted to agree with you, and I suspect he might also, on container security. It protects against any threat that requires bringing material (or people) into the country.<BR/><BR/>Nuclear Plants I also like, but there are close to 100 reactors in the country, according to this:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/north_america.php" REL="nofollow">This Map</A><BR/><BR/>Chemical plants sound good, but how many are there? 10,000? 100,000? I doubt we can get to all of them without diverting some serious resources that could be spent more effectively. We'd have to prioritize, which is pretty much Schneier's point.<BR/><BR/>Disclaimer: He has written a whole (well-received) book on this, Beyond Fear, which I, um, haven't read, but I know I should. I hereby vow to get to it this month. Dammit.k-phohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03106855659965117145noreply@blogger.com