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.


Terrorism & Natural Disasters - Equal Threats or Not?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 08:26 AM
I've been thinking about this and while I have sort of formulated an opinion,I'm not fully convinced and would like some more thoughts on the topic.

What is more important.... preparing for Terrorism or for a Natural Disaster?

Should the Government of the U.S. continue to spend billions on Fighting Terrorism? Or should they spend billions preparing for known natural disaster threats?

Which one is more damaging to an ecomony and society, Terrorism or Natural Disasters? Which one affects more people?

Are these threats equal? What should we fear more? a terrorist attack or a hurricane, earthquake or volcano?

[edit on 9-7-2005 by worldwatcher]

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 09:20 AM
good info regarding disaster preparedness for both terrorism and natural disasters

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:34 PM
sorry. Just one of those days......

[edit on 9-7-2005 by worldwatcher]

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 01:39 PM
I've just seen it and want to respond. It was only posted today. Maybe give it a few days?
It's a good question, I just hadn't seen it yet. I want to think about it.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 02:17 PM
OK. I have my answer.

I think (for me) it's not so much a question of which threat is worse, but how to deal with any threat to the people of a country, specifically the US.

I certainly think the billions spent on the war in Iraq would have been so much better spent here, preparing for any kind of threat (response, preparation, etc.) whether it is natural or man-made. AND securing our people from aggressors and intruders.

I think the US has a very real concern of both kinds of threat because of our position and standing in the world and our recent environmental policies, not to mention the apparent lousy response to any kind of disaster that should take place.

But to answer your original question, I don’t think the threats are equal at all, simply because one is preventable and one is not. We have the technology to prevent people from flying planes into buildings or poisoning our water supply or bringing nuclear weapons across our borders. It’s a matter of competence and cooperation.

We don’t (yet?) have the technology to prevent a hurricane. However we do have the technology to care for the Earth in such a way that the natural disasters aren’t so catastrophic. Unfortunately, that’s a matter of politics and we’re losing on that point. We can however, prepare and respond to a natural disaster. Again, it’s a matter of competence and cooperation, which we obviously sorely and sadly lack.

So, at this time and under the current circumstances, I would have to go with the natural disaster as being more of a threat to the lives of our citizens, the economy and the society.

posted on Sep, 7 2005 @ 11:26 PM
Or Two Words:


Nature and human society are One Thing. We are Not Man Apart. When we live life out of balance, karma comes knocking in the guise of a natural disaster or violence.

Or both.

They are equal threats. For now. Until we build a peaceful society. Then, Ma Nature bats last.

Our response to 'threats' needs to be appropriate.

For example: is it appropriate to shoot looters- or to build a Great Society before disaster strikes? To shore up levees in a swamp- or to build Green Cities in harmonious locations?

As a Buddhist, I view these questions with detachment.

And the current American 'answers' with disgust.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:43 AM

Originally posted by worldwatcher
good info regarding disaster preparedness for both terrorism and natural disasters

interesting document

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:57 AM
I think this is a relatively simple answer. Terrorists kill far fewer people every year than natural disasters. Terrorism is by its nature hard to prevent, and even harder to prosecute. Natural disasters on the other hand follow certain patterns and effect specific areas. It's much easier to prepare for a hurricane than it is to prepare for a potential terrorist attack.

The disaster in NO could have been prevented with just a couple billion a year from the feds. Compared to the WoT spending, this amount is miniscule, and it would save more lives than the entire combined defense budget...

Just makes good sense to prepare for natural disasters and defend the homeland at the same time.

The best offense is, in fact, the best defense. However, a clumsy offense is the WORST defense. We need homeland secruity, definitely. But we need the actual security, not just a department bearing the name that wastes money and screws everything up no matter how much they spend.

We can do more to prevent deaths from tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, VOLCANOES (let's prepare for Yellowstone already), and even meteors.

We have the technology, but as of now, only the elite benefit from it.

Why, because it's so expensive? NO! Because the elite only give a # about themselves, just like we do, and though they're in the position to help us out, they consistently choose not to, for obvious reasons, mostly because they don't gain anything by helping.

It costs considerably less to prevent and mitigate disasters than it does to clean up after them. This fact alone should motivate the government into action, but it doesn't. Why? Because they have no compulsions about spending YOUR money, to pay THEIR friends, to clean up the mess that could have been prevented.

Case in point is the construction going on in NO. The money spent already, just in the last two weeks, would be enough to prevent this from ever happening again, but it's not being used as such. This is insane, obviously, to maintain this cycle, because the only people who benefit are the elite.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:38 AM
thank you for your responses. I'm still having difficulty rationalizing my opinion which obviously if you know anything about me, is to prepare for natural disasters rather than terrorism.

I do feel terrorism is a threat, but as an average citizen I feel I am in greater danger from a natural disaster than I am from a terrorist attack, so it's hard to justify the spending and even the war on terrorism, yet I know the terrorism does need to be addressed. I certainly don't ever want to see another 9/11 type situation on American land.

Maybe it's because I don't see the terrorism situation as dire as I do the natural catasrophes? I'm really trying to be fair with this issue but the more I look at it, the worse path it seems we're on.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:50 AM
I think it's obvious natural disasters are a bigger threat, but I think terrorism causes a more emotional's an evil act by people out to kill you and your people and you get mad and feel the urge to "get them back"

A natural disaster is an act of God, and while you may be able to point some fingers about being better prepared, you are resigned to fact it was a natural phenomenon.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:03 PM
...just another perspective...

Terrorist Attacks

London Bombing, 37 deaths

World Trade Center, about 2800 deaths

911, 3030 deaths

Wow! That's a lot of people killed! ...isn't it?

Natural Disasters

San Fransisco Earthquake, about 3000 deaths

Deadliest Volcano in the past 100 years, about 29,000 deaths

Deadliest Volcano of all time, about 92,000 deaths

Sumatra Tsunami, about 300,000 deaths

Wow! That's a lot of people killed! ...umm...isn't it...?

Cultural Related Deaths

Automobile Accidents in US, about 40,000 annually

Smoking, about 400,000 deaths annually

Heart Disease in US, 2002, 696,947 deaths

Wow! That's just incredible! More people die from automobile accidents EVERY YEAR than the most talked about earthquake ever, and the biigest volcano of the past century combined! More people die EVERY YEAR from heart disease in this country alone than all of the natural disasters and terrorist events in my entire chart! Wow! That's a lot of people killed!!!

...isn't it...?

War far, about 26,000 deaths

World War II, about 41 million deaths

World War I, about 65 million deaths

Maybe we don't even need to worry so much about spending billions of dollars saving lives and preventing we do NOT spending billions of dollars killing people.

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 03:10 PM
Nicely laid out bucket.

Well presented, and good information, way above.

new topics

top topics


log in