Is the distribution of counterterrorism funds to other cities a wise decision?

  • News
  • Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date
In summary, the Homeland Security Department has announced a decrease in counterterrorism funding for New York City and Washington, D.C. in an effort to distribute resources to other cities facing potential threats. This decision has been met with criticism and concerns about the effectiveness of current counterterrorism measures. Some argue that cities like Charlotte, North Carolina, could also be potential targets for terrorist attacks. Others believe that focusing on previously targeted cities may not be the most effective strategy in preventing future attacks.
  • #1
Rach3
Apparently we've done so good of a job at preventing terrorism in NYC and DC, we overdid it! We're so redundantly over-safe, we should drastically cut back.
WASHINGTON - The two cities targeted in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will receive far less counterterrorism money this year in what the Homeland Security Department described Wednesday as an effort to spread funding to other communities facing threats.

Officials noted a $119 million cut in the total funds available for the 2006 fiscal year from last year. In all, 46 cities will share $710 million in Homeland Security grants to prevent and respond to terror attacks and, to a lesser extent, other catastrophic disasters like hurricanes...

"At the end of the day our job is to make sure that we apply resources in an appropriate manner across the full breadth of this nation so that we get the maximum benefit out of those dollars," Homeland Security Undersecretary George Foresman told reporters in Washington.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cities_terrorism [Broken]

Yes, that's exactly how you get maximum benefit... :uhh: (who are these idiots?)

(Not that any of this ever had any effect, other than PR...)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Sorry I deleted this message.

I just had a quick thought and idea of terrorism/Sept 11/and U.S overall and what I said was wrong however it gave a base for another idea.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
So you're saying we get maximum benefit by dumping all the money into 2 cities? I didn't know NYC and DC have 300 million citizens...
 
  • #4
So you think terrorists are going to blow up a ranch in Whyoming?
 
  • #5
Rach3 said:
So you think terrorists are going to blow up a ranch in Whyoming?

What a sad sad stereotype.
 
  • #6
Well then, smarty pants. I'm in charges of awarding grants, and you're the governor of Why-oh-Why-oming. You tell me why you want $75 million in DHS money, what you plan to do with it, and how it'll make your state safer from terrorists.
 
  • #7
How bout you tell me why 2 cities deserve 3/4 of a billion dollars while everyone else gets to rot. How much do you want to bet that if Las Vegas or the California central valley or San Fran was hit, you'd complain about uneven appropriations?
 
  • #8
Hundreds of extra police officers patrolling subways. Metal detectors, surveillance cameras. Concrete barriers around buildings.

I'm not advocating disenfranchising the rest of the country, I'm just pointing out that there are at most ten cities which can reasonbly call themselves targets of international terrorism. Any other cities would be flattering themselves to be in that position. Las Vegas is an obvious symbolic target; suburban California is not. NYC has a super-high concentration of viable symbolic targets. The decision is yours.
 
  • #9
Rach3 said:
Hundreds of extra police officers patrolling subways. Metal detectors, surveillance cameras. Concrete barriers around buildings.

According to this forum, those don't work, sorry.
 
  • #10
But it's good PR. Makes you look busy.
 
  • #11
Rach3 said:
I'm not advocating disenfranchising the rest of the country, I'm just pointing out that there are at most ten cities which can reasonbly call themselves targets of international terrorism. Any other cities would be flattering themselves to be in that position. Las Vegas is an obvious symbolic target; suburban California is not. NYC has a super-high concentration of viable symbolic targets. The decision is yours.

You hit an agricultural center and you'll get nationwide chaos. Probably not because of any actual danger, but how insane are people when it comes to their food? People think GE food will eat unsuspecting normal food. They're nuts
 
  • #12
Exactly. A suicide bomber drives into a cornfield, so the whole nation panics over the lost food.
 
  • #13
Rach3 said:
Exactly. A suicide bomber drives into a cornfield, so the whole nation panics over the lost food.

sure thing boss :rolleyes:
 
  • #14
Your idea, not mine.
 
  • #15
Rach3 said:
Your idea, not mine.

Im glad you aren't working for DHS...
 
  • #16
I'm glad you're not working anywhere.
 
  • #17
I think it's funny you equate ever city that's NOT New York or D.C. to "A wheat field in Wyoming"

There are many cities that I promise you are on potential target lists for Terrorist groups.

Is Oklahoma City the "middle of a wheat field"? (and it is irrelevant that it was a domestic terrorist in that case)

Here is a story I heard about some time ago about a man who appeared to be doing a lot of research on the "structural integrity" of some sky scrapers in Charlotte N.C.

http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-081004-al-terrorist_arrest.62f5ce3e.html [Broken]

Charlotte (pop. 540,828)
http://www.city-data.com/city/North-Carolina.html

Charlotte isn't New York by any means, but it is the Banking Capital of the U.S. and clearly not "a wheat field"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Seeing what happened on 9/11 I don't think there's could be such a thing as too safe.
 
  • #19
I think that New York and DC are not very god places to spend our HS money. They've already been hit. The pattern of terrorism seems to be that they never do the same thing twice. This keeps them unpredictable, which is to their benefit. I'm afraid that while we've got our attention focussed on places they've hit in the past, they'll strike somewhere else.

I'm sure that a terrorist trying to make a statement would be a lot more interested in hitting new targets than in re-hitting old ones. Having already made their point about NY and DC, I would expect them to hit Vegas or Hollywood next. They've made their statement about our politics, now they'll want to say something about our morality.

A widespread attack on Christian Churches wouldn't be any great suprise, either, it just requires more people than they've got. But maybe a Billy Graham crusade; couple hundred thousand people all in one place, millions watching on live TV, lots of limelite.
 
  • #20
The only threat to US citizens is through programs like 24 and NCIS. On an average day you got 20 cops patrolling Dunkin Donuts here in NYC.
 
  • #21
LURCH said:
I think that New York and DC are not very god places to spend our HS money. They've already been hit. The pattern of terrorism seems to be that they never do the same thing twice. This keeps them unpredictable, which is to their benefit. I'm afraid that while we've got our attention focussed on places they've hit in the past, they'll strike somewhere else.

I'm sure that a terrorist trying to make a statement would be a lot more interested in hitting new targets than in re-hitting old ones. Having already made their point about NY and DC, I would expect them to hit Vegas or Hollywood next. They've made their statement about our politics, now they'll want to say something about our morality.

A widespread attack on Christian Churches wouldn't be any great suprise, either, it just requires more people than they've got. But maybe a Billy Graham crusade; couple hundred thousand people all in one place, millions watching on live TV, lots of limelite.
You are aware the World Trade Centre was attacked twice?

It actually serves the terrorists ends perfectly to repeatedly attack the same places as if successful it demonstrates the impotence of the gov't to protect it's citizens which is what terrorism is all about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
It seems to me that the cut to NYC's allocation was partly the result of a squabble between the City and DHS. Apparently (and I paraphrase liberally) NYC indicated that the Feds not tell them how they should spend the money, thank you very much. The Feds responded with okay, go screw yourself!

To see how petty this gets one needs to only look at the calculation used for the allocation of funds, based on the threat formula written up by DHS.

The Homeland Security statement released Thursday said that New York's famous structures had all been counted in categories other than national icons and monuments — the Brooklyn Bridge was counted as a bridge, the Empire State Building as a "tall office building."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror2jun02,1,5324865.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo [Broken]

The Statue of Liberty was counted under the category of lonely French women. :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Art said:
You are aware the World Trade Centre was attacked twice?

Yes; once unsuccessfully, and then a second time to accomplish what they failed to accomplish in the first attempt. I do not think it will be attacked again. The only other thing I can think of in New York City that terrorists might find of interest would be the Statue of Liberty. The relatively minimal threat to human life makes this a low priority for defense, in my opinion.

DC is a bit more target-rich. The White House, the Capitol building, or the Washington Monument might look appealing. But I would expect the next truly large-scale attacks to be attempted to a different city (or cities).
 
  • #24
LURCH said:
Yes; once unsuccessfully, and then a second time to accomplish what they failed to accomplish in the first attempt. I do not think it will be attacked again. The only other thing I can think of in New York City that terrorists might find of interest would be the Statue of Liberty. The relatively minimal threat to human life makes this a low priority for defense, in my opinion.

DC is a bit more target-rich. The White House, the Capitol building, or the Washington Monument might look appealing. But I would expect the next truly large-scale attacks to be attempted to a different city (or cities).

You guys have some great ideas.

Maybe the terrorists should come visit PF for some fresh insight.

So, any more ideas?
 
  • #25
Actually, I do have a number of fairly creative ideas, but there's no way I'm going to share those in an open public forum (there exists just a slim chance that it might be read by someone who would not have thought of it on their own). All I'll talk about in here is stuff that everyone already knows, and stuff that has already been said on TV or published in print.
 
  • #26
LURCH said:
Actually, I do have a number of fairly creative ideas, but there's no way I'm going to share those in an open public forum (there exists just a slim chance that it might be read by someone who would not have thought of it on their own). All I'll talk about in here is stuff that everyone already knows, and stuff that has already been said on TV or published in print.

We all have our ideas because we all plan to control he woorrrlllldddd. :devil:

HAHAHAHAhahahahah! (Evil laugh.)
 
  • #27
The method for determining which cities receive funding has been changed. Supposedly it now gives a better balance nation wide. I can see however, where there is a possibility of funding deciscions being swayed by local politicians.

According to what I have found on the net, 46 cities have received increased funding. Orlando Florida received a large grant due to its proximity to Disney World.

If we think back to 911, Bin Laudin said he wanted to hurt us financially, and he certainly did.
It has always been my opinion that Islamic terrorists want to hurt our strength as a nation. This would leave our financial infrastructure, power generation , and water supplies at the top of the list, not Disney World.
I only hope that the new panel who decides on how the funds are distributed keep this in mind.

We don't have to worry about divulging any secrets here on the forum. Many Islamic radicals attended colleges and Universities here. The radicals who do the planning know more about America's vulnerable locations than the Average American does.


NEW YORK -- The panel that guided the distribution of $710 million in anti-terrorism money in a process that led to Indianapolis' reduced share is a shadow player in the war on terrorism, its work kept secret and its members shielded from view.


A collection of about 100 law enforcement officials and government representatives from across the country, the so-called peer reviewers who evaluated proposals for the Department of Homeland Security, took vows of silence, signing agreements that they would not reveal the substance of their deliberations.
Homeland Security officials say that in creating the panel this year, they were seeking to institute a new system of evaluating aid applications that would for the first time engage people from around the country, making the judging impartial.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060603/NEWS06/606030504/1012 [Broken]
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/grant31.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
I know it sounds a bit silly, but I prefer to err on the side of caution y'know?

Besides, what if one of us accidentally shares a plan closely resembling that which some terorist carries out later? How would you prove that you didn't do it, or participate in it? Most of us in the Forums are single and don't have many witnesses to where we were on a certain date.
 
  • #29
Rach3 said:
So you think terrorists are going to blow up a ranch in Whyoming?


Well, I hear a biological attack in the form of hoof and mouth disease could devastate the agricultural industry. I don't actually think they are planning for this one though.
 
  • #30
Sometimes when something is done once, it doesn't have to be done again. For instance, if NYC stockpiles anti-biotics for a bio attack they may not have to do it again for some years.

There is also a limit to how secure we can be. We still have vulnerabilities, and I expect that we will always have vulnerabilities. Tomorrow will come and the greatest threat to America will again be a hurricane in New Orleans.
 
  • #31
The funds also must go to local disaster preparedness, including natural disasters.
That spreads 700 million pretty thin.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
5
Replies
150
Views
21K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Engineering
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
4K
Back
Top