> 1) We need funding to fight X 2) If X happens anyway we need more funding That does seem to be roughly the stance taken by security agencies, but it also occ

> 1) We need funding to fight X 2) If X happens anyway we need more funding That does seem to be roughly the stance taken by security agencies, but it also occurs to me that I view this as a completely reasonable argument when I hear it from an IT department or the CDC. I want the CDC to have lots of resources to protect against serious outbreaks of infectious disease, and if one happens, I see it as a signal of three possibilities: (a) They need more resources. (b) They need to fix their methods. (c) Nothing's 100% safe and we should accept that. I definitely see TSA as mostly pretty much 100% (b)+(c) (mostly (c), to be honest), but the reasoning you cided isn't always wrong--sometimes (a) is legitimately the case, so you can't dismiss it out of hand.