I've just seen the Contagion movie that features a virus outbreak that is portraid to be the deadliest on earth. In the exaggerations of hollywood, this meant 25 million dead in 133 days, worldwide. Then they stopped the virus with a new vaccine. Compared to the world's total population, 25 million is nothing. So, sizing it down to a city, the % will not change, and the worst a city would get would be a few 100 dead. So, is it worthwhile to spend all that homeland security anti-terror budget, when we could simply spend it to make better/more gear for real military active combat personnel?
You are basing the need for homeland security off of an arbitrary amount of people killed in a movie that did not last very long in theaters? Holy (*)(*)(*)(*). Yes, it is a real threat. Just like it has always been. Take a look at news stories from around the world.
Ma'am, if I may, movies are instrumental in establishing many Department of Defense policies. Contagion should be no different. For example Top Gun. Shirtless volleyball is now an integral part of specialized undergraduate pilot training, coinciding with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. The real concern for our Homeland Security department is a scenario similar to Resident Evil. We need to prepare immediately for a potential zombie virus infecting the populace...in fact there is evidence that many Democrats have already been exposed.
Okay, so what's the worst number that we can dig up out of reality? The Tokyo subway attacks? Only a few people died, nothing to make a dent in a city.
The worst number we can take out of reality. Look up the Spanish Flu. The movie contagion was really very good- but the developement of the vaccine was way too optimistic. A weaponized Spanish Flu or Ebola could easily result in 20-25% deaths in a big city- if they could be weaponized well. And there are issues about that. The bigger danger seriously in my opinion is that we just are not prepared for a serious pandemic that will probably happen at some point. We do not have the vaccine research facilities or more importantly the vaccine production facilities to produce vaccines fast enough. I am more concerned with a natural occurance than a terrorist attack. That said- it all depends on the type of attack. Biological could be anything from minor to major. Chemical would likely be very limited- as in impacting the population of one city- not our country. Nuclear could devestate a single city, but our country as a whole could absorb it. As to the question is it a real threat? Well certainly there are persons in the world that would like to attack U.S. cities. And no defense is full proof against such an attack. But I dont' consider the odds of being hurt by a terrorist attack is a real threat to my actual health. The fall out from 9/11 wasn't the thousands of people dead- yes for them and their family- but for our country the fall out was the way we reacted to it, and the economic hit we took from it. I think there is a real threat of another attack that does less actual harm, but causes us to react in ways that will cost all of us.
Of course it is a threat. You can't just prepare for fighting the zombies, you have to prepare for a vaccine/anti-virus. Excuse my analogy. You can't just clean up the mess after it happens, no matter how small. Human lives are human lives. You spend money making sure that the mess never happens. It's worked so far right? 9/11 is the biggest homeland security failure I can think of. So, why stop now?
