I (somewhat) Agree With Harry Reid!

[Bruzilla]

Funny, I don't remember ranking the likelihood of an attack at Vegas being higher than NY, LA, DC, etc. It's definitely higher that Mechanicsville And if you think that Vegas has a low population denisty, I guess you've never been there over the weekend. Hit a casino or two with chem/bio and you've got your thousands or tens of thousands. Plus you have the added chaos from people prizing money over their own safety which would boost the death toll.

The point (for the very slow) is to adjust funds based on risk and if you think that the risk for Vegas is low, you're an idiot. Hell, I'd put the Mall of America down as a medium to high risk...especially on days like Black Friday.

You know... casting dispersions doesn't give your argument any additional credibility... it just makes you look ignorant.

You're quite right in saying that Las Vegas has a higher population density than Mechanicsville, but it doesn't come near the densities of major cities and metropolitan areas. One can say that a burger at Applebees is better than a burger at McDonalds, but that still doesn't make it a steak. If you're a terrorist leader with limited resources and working in a high-risk environment, you're going for "steak" not a Happy Meal.

You're also quite right that a bio hit in a hotel could kill thousands, but since you've elevated the discussion to WMDs, which would be a better target: a hotel that's in the middle of the desert with little through traffic or a major hub airport or train terminal? Also, just for the record, bio weapons just don't do very well in areas where there's a lot of dryness and heat. The little bugs do much better in cooler, moist, atmospheres... so it would be a very poor terrorist leader indeed who would hope to wreak havoc with a bio weapon in Las Vegas. They could use a nuclear or chemical weapon, but then the benefit of people travelling and spreading the problem is wiped out and your casulaties are limited to only those in the immediate effected area. The weapon of choice, if we're talling WMDs, would be a bio weapon in a cool, moist, atmosphere where there's a lot of traffic... which rules out Vegas.

Everytime that you spread resources around, according to risk, you are limiting the resources that you can dedicate to the highest-threat targets. The argument that if we only protect major cities like Los Angeles and New York we leave low-risk cities like Las Vegas and Jacksonville in danger and make them more inviting to terrorists doesn't hold water for the simple reason that it's impossible for us to protect every potential target. If we protect Baltimore, they'll go after Pikesville. We protect Pikesville they go after Ocean City. We protect Ocean City they'll go after Lexington Park. We protect Lexington Park they'll go after Mechanicsville. So we could go completely broke trying to protect just one state's potential targets yet alone 50 states' worth. So if we can't protect every potential target, where do we cutoff the protection?

In my opinion we shouldn't be basing protection on the terrorist attack risk but rather on the value of the potential target to the United States. If we lose Las Vegas there would be lots of deaths, but the US as a whole wouldn't be impacted. If we lost Jacksonville there would be lots of deaths but again, the US as a whole wouldn't be impacted. If we were to lose Washington, New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago there would be huge impacts to the United States, so I would distribute money based on the value of the target, not on any risk factors.

 

[vraiblonde]

I would say that Senator Hutchinson acted out of far too much regard for a special interest, but I would not say that she opposed the DHS.

Well, then I will say that Harry Reid doesn't oppose HS, but he is a special interest whore who was more than willing to trade the security of his constituents for money from the labor unions. Now he wants to cry and blame the Bush Administration for something he, himself, voted against.

 

[Larry Gude]

Here's the deal...

19 men who fit a pretty narrow profile hijacked and brought down 4 US airliners in a profoundly cheap, low tech fashion.

The FBI was already onto them, before they acted, and I'll bet the CIA knew a good bit about them as well.

US civil rights laws went a long way in preventing law enforcement, the FBI, doing much about them until AFTER they acted. We know this.

US civil rights laws go even further in preventing the CIA from doing much of anything within the US. We know that.

The Patriot act went however far it went in freeing the FBI and CIA and coordinating same.

At that point, all that needed to be done to have prevented 9/11 was done. Additionally, retaliation is being handled by US armed forces.

End of story.

From there, Harry Reid, Paul Sarbanes, Mitch McConnel and everyone else in congress used the excuse of terror to start dolling out pork to their districts and states. Not one dime, save stronger cockpit doors, has helped make us safer in any way, shape or form.

Homeland security is a farce and a much larger threat to our freedom than the Patriot Act.

It embarrasses me to be a conservative and watch my President preside over this strictly pork, government expansion scheme.

 

[ylexot]

You know... casting dispersions doesn't give your argument any additional credibility... it just makes you look ignorant.

You're quite right in saying that Las Vegas has a higher population density than Mechanicsville, but it doesn't come near the densities of major cities and metropolitan areas. One can say that a burger at Applebees is better than a burger at McDonalds, but that still doesn't make it a steak. If you're a terrorist leader with limited resources and working in a high-risk environment, you're going for "steak" not a Happy Meal.

You're also quite right that a bio hit in a hotel could kill thousands, but since you've elevated the discussion to WMDs, which would be a better target: a hotel that's in the middle of the desert with little through traffic or a major hub airport or train terminal? Also, just for the record, bio weapons just don't do very well in areas where there's a lot of dryness and heat. The little bugs do much better in cooler, moist, atmospheres... so it would be a very poor terrorist leader indeed who would hope to wreak havoc with a bio weapon in Las Vegas. They could use a nuclear or chemical weapon, but then the benefit of people travelling and spreading the problem is wiped out and your casulaties are limited to only those in the immediate effected area. The weapon of choice, if we're talling WMDs, would be a bio weapon in a cool, moist, atmosphere where there's a lot of traffic... which rules out Vegas.

Everytime that you spread resources around, according to risk, you are limiting the resources that you can dedicate to the highest-threat targets. The argument that if we only protect major cities like Los Angeles and New York we leave low-risk cities like Las Vegas and Jacksonville in danger and make them more inviting to terrorists doesn't hold water for the simple reason that it's impossible for us to protect every potential target. If we protect Baltimore, they'll go after Pikesville. We protect Pikesville they go after Ocean City. We protect Ocean City they'll go after Lexington Park. We protect Lexington Park they'll go after Mechanicsville. So we could go completely broke trying to protect just one state's potential targets yet alone 50 states' worth. So if we can't protect every potential target, where do we cutoff the protection?

In my opinion we shouldn't be basing protection on the terrorist attack risk but rather on the value of the potential target to the United States. If we lose Las Vegas there would be lots of deaths, but the US as a whole wouldn't be impacted. If we lost Jacksonville there would be lots of deaths but again, the US as a whole wouldn't be impacted. If we were to lose Washington, New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago there would be huge impacts to the United States, so I would distribute money based on the value of the target, not on any risk factors.

POP QUIZ HOTSHOT!

1) Prior to 9/11, terrorists were relatively free to work (compared to today's security). The targets were the Twin Towers in NY, the Pentagon, and possibly the Sears Tower (that's the guess I heard since it never reached it's destination). What was the "huge impact" to the United States?

2) If bio is so worthless in hot, dry climates, why were they feared in Iraq?

 

[Lenny]

Reid says Chertoff should resign I don't know if Chertoff should resign over this, but is is pretty to not consider "Sin City" as high-risk. Anybody that knows anything about risk knows that it is a combination of the likelihood of occurrance and the consequence if it does happen ("it" being a terror attack in this discussion). It's pretty obvious that the consequence would be high. The likelihood is debatable and would come from a number of factors like security (which Vegas has quite a bit), intel, etc. I'd guess that the likelihood would be in the medium range which would make the overall risk somewhat high.

And before anybody says it, yes, I know that Reid's main driver is likely the loss in funding for his state.

Chertoff and Homeland Security are being misinterpreted. Las Vegas is not on the "High-Risk, Worth-The-Effort" list!