Security funding change an overdue start

The Department of Homeland Security’s new policy of distributing funding based on risk, not politics, is a long overdue change. But the policy applies only to a funding program targeting the nation’s largest cities (Wichita didn’t make the list). The department needs to prioritize all its funding, so that more money goes to high risk cities and strategic locations, such as ports.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee

4 Comments

  1. writerdog
    Posted January 7, 2006 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Shortly after 911, I said that if I was the terrorists I would plan on a strike against a small town. Wiping out the population , every resident of that town. Somewhere far from the coast , yes more than likely in the Mid-west. Terrorism is the cheapest form of warfare, you are mobile, it takes a rather small number of combatants and less money then a large Army. The goal is shock and to un-nerve the enemy, with the least amount of effort. That is why the car bomb is so effective in Iraq, flying a plane into a building here.

    If your enemy makes it too hard to hit your first target, you can change to another target easier then moving an Army and it ware over a great distance. We need to think outside the box, or at least keep all the targets in mind. This is not the Soviet Army we are fighting, NYC and L.A. are still prizes in the terrorists minds.But we have to consider that Smallville, Ks. could be too.

  2. J M Walker
    Posted January 7, 2006 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    writerdog,I couldn’t agree more: Think of what it would do to this nation if a small town was the target of a dirty bomb. I think it would do more damage to the American physique than would a car bomb in LA. But I think the terrorist mentality is to do as much damage as possible, causing the most deaths as possible. Ergo, ports, airports, major tunnels, bridges, reservoirs and nuclear plants fall more in line with what terrorists will target.

    But We don’t have to worry about that now, do we: We got Bush and company listening to every conversation in the CONUS, so it CAN’T happen. I’m here to tell you I feel safe.

  3. XXX
    Posted January 7, 2006 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    At least Kansas has nothing to worry about. The Taliban already runs the state.

  4. PL
    Posted January 7, 2006 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    Ports are the logical weak spot and deserve the most funding.

    Unfortunately, a lot of ports are along the coasts where the states are bright blue.

    BushCo. isn’t interested in sending Democrats money even if they are Americans.