If you think one 9/11 scale attack per year is unreasonable, please come up with a figure you think is.

Are the people arguing against rlumley actually arguing that cost/benefit is not issue or that rlumley's got his cost/benefit estimate wrong? The two are vastly different.

Seatbelts are very cheap and have a demonstrable safety effect. Their cost/benefit ratio is very low. Preventing conventional wars through strong national defense arguably has a low cost/benefit ratio because the casualties caused by conventional warfare are massive. Most countries seem to achieve peace without nearly as massive defense budgets though. Airlines outfit their planes with appropriate precautions based on cost/benefit analysis. If you think planes are absolutely as safe as they can possibly be, think again, they're as safe as is reasonable in terms of cost. You can't spend infinitely on safety... think of what you'd have to give up to do so.

Anti-terrorism spending is massive compared to the lives saved. Ok. I think we all agree that there have been less terrorist attacks on American soil because of Homeland Security. It's hard to know how many have actually been prevented, or would have occurred without Homeland Security, but let's be reasonable. How many lives could have possibly been lost if Homeland Security had half its budget. What about a quarter? How many more lives will be saved if you double Home Sec.'s budget? I'm inclined to believe diminishing returns are in play here. You have to weigh the ratio to determine whether or not it's worth it. Octavious brings up a good point regarding the money lost in stock markets due to terrorist attacks. That should definitely weigh into the cost/benefit ratio. You also have to consider the opportunity cost of the money spent. If it costs a $5000 in police expenses to prevent/deter a homicide, or $14000 to give an American the medication they need to survive, or $20000 to properly execute a heart transplant, and $1 million dollars to prevent a death related to a terrorist attack... I've made up the numbers completely, but the point is that it's a matter of the numbers.

On a separate point, airport security is absolutely daft. You can't bring shampoo but you can bring a lighter on the plane. *cough* Tobacco industry lobby *cough*. Oh, but you can actually bring a lot of liquids as long as they are in small individual containers. Couple of ounces of plastic explosives in my toothpaste, another couple in my shampoo, another couple in my deodorant. Airport security is practically a symbolic gesture. The actual measures are absurd.

It started as an argyument that his estimates were way off, but he corrected those. It is now about whether there is such a thing as a cost/benefit ratio when it comes to preventive services and if we can even begin to estimate how many potential attacks are stopped by Homeland Security.

I would go so far as to remind rlumley that it only takes one more straw to break the proverbial camel's back. Even if only two major events were stopped in the last 10 years that we could learn about, how many mroe couldn't we learn of because they wqere classified or we stopped them before we even knew they would become major events. And how many small events (Timothy McVeigh type bombings) does it take to add up to a major event?

Of course cost/benefit ratio applies to preventative measures. That's the reason preventative measures are undertaken... it costs much less to vaccinate than to treat.

Those are legitimate questions, but at least they argue the size of the cost/benefit ratio and not the actual application.

I would actually argue that any and all potential terror plots were reported by the media. This is not the Cold War. The government would want to show the benefit of their preventative measures and justify their actions both domestically and internationally. It's similar to the way every drug bust gets media coverage, with none of the drug busts getting classified. It's the only way to garner the public opinion needed to justify the measures.

Do you think Homeland Security has the power to prevent small scale attacks from rogue individuals? I'm not very read up about the Timothy Mcveigh situation. Did the Feds have any clue that it was going to happen? Seems like it would be too small to come up on their radar.

I disagree, Chrisp. Ongoing operation where they stop one plot but are trying to get to the source would be hidden. Just like the regular police do in murders (especially suspected serial murders), things will be hidden from the public where possible to allow the investigators to continue unfettered.

chrisp- a friend of mine got into an accident and would have died if she were wearing a seatbelt. Fancy that.

Ever noticed how it is always "a friend"? :-) But seriously, my uncle lost his spleen due to the damage done by a seatbelt, but the alternative is unknowable (and unthinkable). And anyone who says they would have died had they been wearing one, can't possibly know that for a fact.

Yeah.. A friend of mine also died due to alcohol poisoning at age 15. I have a friend for about everything.

That was a joke (see the smiley?) but the point stands that no one can know what *would* have happened unless they have a time machine and can report back the results in a parallel timeline. They can postulate what *might* have happened, but not what *would* have happened.

I fail to see why someone would have died if they were wearing a seatbelt- seatbelts save lives do not take them Amon.
Personally those who don't wear seatbelts deserve the outcome.
Only idiots do not wear seatbelts, and they are necessary by LAW here

Probably because the car threw the girl in question out of the car before it flipped into a tree that would have crushed the cab in such a manner as to where she would have been pancaked.

Again, speculation. Depending on when it threw her out and where she was (was she the driver?) maybe she could have brought the car into better control before it started flipping had she still been behind the wheel. Likewise, the seat brackets and back locks have eneough give and take that, while she may have been hurt, she may well have been extricated from it by the jaws. Being thrown from a vehicle is *not* a good thing. She could just as easily ended up underneath the car or between the car and the tree. Not having a seatbelt on didn't save her, dumb luck did.

lmao it was dumb luck that she didn't have the seatbelt on. The car was rolling, hence she was thrown out. You cannot gain control while rolling, dumbass.

Dude. I control rolling cars all. the. time.

Oh wait. You're not talking about Hot Wheels?

How would you control a Hot Wheels car while it's rolling?

string

@Draugnar

What if someone was ejected from their car because they weren't wearing a seatbelt and the car subsequently rolled off a very, very high cliff? Surely you can then say that they would have died if they were wearing the seatbelt?

Now, with that being said, I think it's very stupid not to wear a seatbelt, since they clearly increase your chance of survival in an accident by a tremendous amount.

@De Gaulle
That's a bit harsh, no?

What the hell is wrong with you kids, and your seatbelt bullshit. You won't care if you're dead. My only worry is being severely maimed and NOT dieing... Which is a higher chance if you do wear a seatbelt.

@Amon

At times, the things you say are so dumb, I can't tell if you're an idiot, or a very clever troll.

Just an idiot, I assure you.

Amon, your mouth is talking. You might want to see to that.

Amon, your friend's case is an exception. In the majority of cases seatbelts are beneficial. I have also heard of harmful cases, but I've also heard of people's phones randomly exploding in their pockets, but I still keep my phone in my pocket and I wear my seatbelt. You play the odds.

Alright Draugnar, I'll give you that. I still don't think the orders of magnitudes between the money spent and the potential terrorism casualties match up at all. Just to get to around $100,000 per life Homeland security would have had to have prevented roughly half a million casualties due to terrorism... That's an absurd amount.

Your back to analyzing the savings strictly in lives and not including all loses. How much do you think it costs just to build a skyscraper? What if the terrorists took out a nuclear power facility, not only killing millions of people potentially but also making the land around that area uninhabitable for centuries and potentially spoiling the water table such that people for hundreds of miles were put at risk of developing cancer or having babies born with extreme birth defects. Look at Chernobyl. Stopping just one Chernobyl caused by terrorism would be worth the price to me.

24 had a great scenario this season. What if the terrorists were able to set off a dirty bomb in Manhattan at midday on a Wednesday? Millions wounded or killed. Our economic infrastructure collapses. And our greatest city brought to it's knees. The costs would be staggering. Real costs in the billions and cost of lives potentially over 1 million people.

Protip: Get your terror opinions from 24.

Chrisp- Only beneficial if you want to stay alive with maims. So I never wear seatbelts. If it is my time to go, then that's how it shall be. The government has no business telling me that I'm wrong for that personal decision. He who trades security for freedom deserves neither.

EDIT; that was supposed to be "freedom for security"