5 ms·

I interpreted the report as: "There are 9 unguarded remote sites which, if damaged maliciously or accidentally, would lead to complete collapse of the U.S. as a

I interpreted the report as: "There are 9 unguarded remote sites which, if damaged maliciously or accidentally, would lead to complete collapse of the U.S. as a nation." And then experts focus on 2 unlikely generalized scenarios of an area EMP effect incidentally affecting the sites. As for the more obvious catastrophe of someone specifically targeting the locations? I guess that's being discussed separately?[1] [1] https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-grid/index.html https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/16/technology/sniper-power-gri...

noir_lord 6y ago
It surprises me that physical attacks against infrastructure haven't been wider then they have.
- mrlonglong 6y ago
  People have tried to destroy mobile phone masts in the mistaken (and deluded) belief that they cause Corona virus. Never under estimate people's stupidity.
codingdave 6y ago
I must have missed the "unguarded remote" part of the article. I read that there are 30 critical sites, any 9 of which would be a problem if taken out. To me, this sounds standard risk management. It sounds like a clear picture that it falls in the "Low Likelihood / High Impact" quadrant, though, which is the toughest quadrant to address, because you get into exactly the kinds of questions you alluded to - unlikely, generalized ideas of what could happen, but having to balance that with everyday operations which are absolutely going to happen. Even with a known mitigation of stockpiling resources to recover from such an event, at a price tag of $300M, there are many other things that money could go to. And while I'd like to feel safe knowing they have a solution ready, I don't know enough about the budgetary limits or what other programs would have to be reduced to make that $300M be available to give a solid personal opinion on any of this.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  The US military budget is nearly $700bn annually, and NASA's budget is $22.6bn. For the US government, $300M is pocket money. It's unbelievably negligent not to spend a relatively tiny sum which could avoid total collapse. It's like owning a very grand house and not paying a few hundred dollars for insurance.
  - codingdave 6y ago
    The US government is operating at a deficit. And budgets are assigned to specific departments, who still try to fit all their programs within it. A better analogy might be that we all live in a very grand house, but can't afford the mortgage. Sure. a family meeting could certainly find the money in a drawer somewhere. But until we have that meeting, everyone is just sitting in their room doing their own thing.
    - stainforth 6y ago
      This analogy is a fallacy that holds us back. MMT states that our nation is not a house.

noir_lord 6y ago

It surprises me that physical attacks against infrastructure haven't been wider then they have.

mrlonglong 6y ago
People have tried to destroy mobile phone masts in the mistaken (and deluded) belief that they cause Corona virus. Never under estimate people's stupidity.

codingdave 6y ago

I must have missed the "unguarded remote" part of the article. I read that there are 30 critical sites, any 9 of which would be a problem if taken out. To me, this sounds standard risk management. It sounds like a clear picture that it falls in the "Low Likelihood / High Impact" quadrant, though, which is the toughest quadrant to address, because you get into exactly the kinds of questions you alluded to - unlikely, generalized ideas of what could happen, but having to balance that with everyday operations which are absolutely going to happen. Even with a known mitigation of stockpiling resources to recover from such an event, at a price tag of $300M, there are many other things that money could go to. And while I'd like to feel safe knowing they have a solution ready, I don't know enough about the budgetary limits or what other programs would have to be reduced to make that $300M be available to give a solid personal opinion on any of this.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
The US military budget is nearly $700bn annually, and NASA's budget is $22.6bn. For the US government, $300M is pocket money. It's unbelievably negligent not to spend a relatively tiny sum which could avoid total collapse. It's like owning a very grand house and not paying a few hundred dollars for insurance.
- codingdave 6y ago
  The US government is operating at a deficit. And budgets are assigned to specific departments, who still try to fit all their programs within it. A better analogy might be that we all live in a very grand house, but can't afford the mortgage. Sure. a family meeting could certainly find the money in a drawer somewhere. But until we have that meeting, everyone is just sitting in their room doing their own thing.
  - stainforth 6y ago
    This analogy is a fallacy that holds us back. MMT states that our nation is not a house.