7 ms·

If all it takes is $4 billion to secure it and we don't, we kinda deserve it to happen. The same country has and is spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan..

If all it takes is $4 billion to secure it and we don't, we kinda deserve it to happen. The same country has and is spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan.. On the other side, someone mention Pascal's Wager: storing a few basic needs and self defense weapons (were legal), costs practically nothing now but it could save your family's life. It's not a sure way but it's much better to have them then not. Even in cramped apartments you could store stuff for a week or two; in private homes, you're talking months. IIRC, tap water in dark areas with a drop of bleach for liter will last for quite a while. Think 55gallon drums, replaced every so often.

brentm 9y ago
Agreed. It leads me to believe that $4b is either inaccurate or it's not as simple as clearing $4B from the budget and selecting a couple of contractors.
- hwillis 9y ago
  Nope! It's probably quite accurate. The article opens with the March 1989 geomagnetic storm which caused massive blackouts in Canada. Canada implemented upgrades like the ones the US should get, to a cost of 1.2 billion[1]. Of course the US grid is significantly more powerful but the Canadian grid is spread much more sparsely, making it more vulnerable- regardless, the cost is certainly within the same order of magnitude, as the US grid only consumes ~8x more power and Canada is larger. It really speaks more to the absurd level of war spending than anything else- and it truly was absurd. Trillions in direct, congressional spending. We shipped 12 billion on pallets[2] to Iraq and lost it, and most people don't even remember it. The cost of revolutionizing the US power infrastructure is literally peanuts compared to what we have spent in the middle east. [1]: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-power-grid-is-getting-smarter-but-is-it-tougher-1.1053093 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-power-grid-is-getting-smar... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1
legulere 9y ago
Having weapons makes it more likely for violent acts to happen. Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself. And then there's the effect on the society: a society based on trust is more productive and safe than a society based on mistrust.
- albertgoeswoof 9y ago
  for society yes, but for the individual no
- tryingagainbro 9y ago
  >> Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself. Probably a lower one than starvation, rape or a violent death in the hands of another desperate person. >> And then there's the effect on the society: a society based on trust is more productive and safe than a society based on mistrust. Nice one. What would happen, today--with all the infrastructure in place--if cops /soldiers stayed home for 36 hours? Now add starvation plus desperation and try again.
- morganvachon 9y ago
  And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan. In other words, armed or not, violence is a given when it gets bad enough that people are scavenging for food. When it's so bad the police and military aren't there to protect you, you either roll over and die, or fight and possibly live another day. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't live in a perfect world with everyone following the rules even in the best of times. I would love it if your ideal world where we all trust each other existed; it would be true paradise. But, we're only human and even the very best of us are flawed creatures.
  - legulere 9y ago
    > And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan. These violence fantasies are repeated on and on in prepper communities, but that does not make them more true. Violence may increase, but mostly people come together to help each other.
shams93 9y ago
And of course the people who made this horrible choice won't have to live with it's worst consequences in a functioning democracy we could vote to protect our infrastructure

brentm 9y ago

Agreed. It leads me to believe that $4b is either inaccurate or it's not as simple as clearing $4B from the budget and selecting a couple of contractors.

hwillis 9y ago
Nope! It's probably quite accurate. The article opens with the March 1989 geomagnetic storm which caused massive blackouts in Canada. Canada implemented upgrades like the ones the US should get, to a cost of 1.2 billion[1]. Of course the US grid is significantly more powerful but the Canadian grid is spread much more sparsely, making it more vulnerable- regardless, the cost is certainly within the same order of magnitude, as the US grid only consumes ~8x more power and Canada is larger. It really speaks more to the absurd level of war spending than anything else- and it truly was absurd. Trillions in direct, congressional spending. We shipped 12 billion on pallets[2] to Iraq and lost it, and most people don't even remember it. The cost of revolutionizing the US power infrastructure is literally peanuts compared to what we have spent in the middle east. [1]: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-power-grid-is-getting-smarter-but-is-it-tougher-1.1053093 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-power-grid-is-getting-smar... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

legulere 9y ago

Having weapons makes it more likely for violent acts to happen. Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself. And then there's the effect on the society: a society based on trust is more productive and safe than a society based on mistrust.

albertgoeswoof 9y ago
for society yes, but for the individual no
tryingagainbro 9y ago
>> Additionally there's a high risk that you will hurt yourself. Probably a lower one than starvation, rape or a violent death in the hands of another desperate person. >> And then there's the effect on the society: a society based on trust is more productive and safe than a society based on mistrust. Nice one. What would happen, today--with all the infrastructure in place--if cops /soldiers stayed home for 36 hours? Now add starvation plus desperation and try again.
morganvachon 9y ago
And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan. In other words, armed or not, violence is a given when it gets bad enough that people are scavenging for food. When it's so bad the police and military aren't there to protect you, you either roll over and die, or fight and possibly live another day. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that we don't live in a perfect world with everyone following the rules even in the best of times. I would love it if your ideal world where we all trust each other existed; it would be true paradise. But, we're only human and even the very best of us are flawed creatures.
- legulere 9y ago
  > And not having weapons makes it more likely you will be attacked and killed for your provisions if the shit hits the fan. These violence fantasies are repeated on and on in prepper communities, but that does not make them more true. Violence may increase, but mostly people come together to help each other.

shams93 9y ago

And of course the people who made this horrible choice won't have to live with it's worst consequences in a functioning democracy we could vote to protect our infrastructure