Originally Posted by
law dawg
The question "How much risk can we live with?" cuts to the heart of homeland security because the answer should guide the way government spends money, the primary tool for fighting terrorism. We simply cannot protect everything, and because budget resources are limited, spending security money protecting one asset means leaving another vulnerable. We must spend effectively and strategically. That means employing sound cost-benefit analyses to reduce risk to manageable levels is the only reasonable goal. Industry has a word for this kind of strategic thinking: risk management.
Unfortunately, the sheeple don't understand this and think not only that everything should be protected, but that it
must be protected. No politician is going to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Instead they are trying very hard to make it look like they are doing what the sheeple want. That's how things like the liquid idiocy remain in place.