It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anti-terror money would be better spent fighting serious risks

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 05:52 PM

Bold statement.

The billions of dollars Canada is spending to protect people from the remote threat of terrorism would be better used fighting far greater risks such as disease and smog, critics say.

Ottawa has allotted more than $10 billion for enhanced public safety since the 9-11 attacks in New York, while thousands die from air and water pollution.

Good to know info...

The federal government is stockpiling pharmaceuticals in the event of a bioterrorist attack, which many experts consider extremely unlikely.

"In my opinion they are scaring the hell out of the public, there's no need for this," said Shiv Chopra, a microbiologist who used to work for Health Canada.

Ah the ole your doomed if you do, doomed if you dont scenario.

So should small pox and anthrax get priority over smog and clean water?

"It's a matter of perspective and priority-setting," said St. John.

He quoted a U.S. official as saying that the hardest thing about disaster planning is explaining why you didn't do it.


Well in my mind, they are partially right. We should be spending some of this funding elsewhere, but on what is very debatable.

-We should improve border security and ports.
-We should give more funding to the military, for new equipment that is. NOT military funding that only benefits the prime minister ( they recently bought new aircraft to fly around officials AKA the prime minister, but have not updated countless other craft)

They make a good point that kyoto will be hard to match. I agree.

But again, the old doomsday scenario kicks in, the what if's, the "hardest thing about disaster planning is explaining why you didn't do it" idea.

Well we can speculate all day. We could spend money protecting everything, and still not protect the one target they attack. After all, who attacks a tough target? If they know that we have extreme security in city X why not go for city Y etc.

The article makes good points about things like anthrax etc too.

Im sure we will have an attack sooner or later, but im not worried a bit.

new topics

log in