"There is a dangerous disconnect between the seriousness of the terrorist nuclear thereat (and other WMDs) and the allocation of resources in the Federal Budget. Out of the $631 billion defense budget, less thatn $2 billion - one third of one percent - is dedicated to securing loose nukes or nuclear material that could fall into the hands of terrorists. Compare that funding with the $224 billion price tag for the Joint Strike Fighter, the $132 billion cost of the Army's Future Combat Systems, or the $3.3 billion cost for each of the Navy's new DDG high-tech destroyers."
-Charles Konigsberg in his book America's Priorities
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The DOD has its own "Defense Business Board" which advises the SecDef on how to run the organization’s business effectively. I am not saying that their recommendations always make economic sense, but it is one of the examples that show it is perhaps not only how the DOD does business but policies decided higher up that contribute to what you describe as shocking figure. It is, ultimately, a set of policies mapped out by President.
I would also point out that cost effectiveness varies. In other words, every one (voters, policy makers, or President) has a different set of priorities. In your view, it does not make any economic sense to spend millions of dollars per day to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I am sure that you find people in the government who believe it is worth the costs.
Post a Comment