Anybody ever wonder

[Kirth Gersen]

LilithsThrall wrote:

We don't have to choose between increased intelligence and increased physical protection.

Given infinite resources, that would be true. However, there are limits on the total number of personnel available, and more especially on the total funding available. Especially in view of the unbelievable federal budget issues we're facing, resources need to be allocated strategically, not emotionally.

Arguably, one strong contributing factor to the economic end of the Soviet Union was that they flagrantly took resources that were desperately needed in other areas (infrastructure, agriculture, environment) and instead funneled them all into runaway defense spending. Are we really unable to learn that lesson ourselves?

[Paul Watson]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

We don't have to choose between increased intelligence and increased physical protection.

Given infinite resources, that would be true. However, there are limits on the total number of personnel available, and more especially on the total funding available. Especially in view of the unbelievable federal budget issues we're facing, resources need to be allocated strategically, not emotionally.

Arguably, one strong contributing factor to the economic end of the Soviet Union was that they flagrantly took resources that were desperately needed in other areas (infrastructure, agriculture, environment) and instead funneled them all into runaway defense spending. Are we really unable to learn that lesson ourselves?

*Shakes Magic 8 ball* 'All signs point to Yes'

[LilithsThrall]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

We don't have to choose between increased intelligence and increased physical protection.

Given infinite resources, that would be true. However, there are limits on the total number of personnel available, and more especially on the total funding available. Especially in view of the unbelievable federal budget issues we're facing, resources need to be allocated strategically, not emotionally.

Arguably, one strong contributing factor to the economic end of the Soviet Union was that they flagrantly took resources that were desperately needed in other areas (infrastructure, agriculture, environment) and instead funneled them all into runaway defense spending. Are we really unable to learn that lesson ourselves?

Your point is well taken. In return, protecting the border will reduce costs elsewhere. How much social cost is the result of drugs? I'm not talking about the fact that drugs are illegal, I'm talking about the loss of productivity due to addiction and associated medical problems as well as the violence (someone on drugs doing something violent)? The sooner we can stop that, the less it will cost to fix.

[Kirth Gersen]

LilithsThrall wrote:

How much social cost is the result of drugs? I'm not talking about the fact that drugs are illegal, I'm talking about the loss of productivity due to addiction and associated medical problems as well as the violence? The sooner we can stop that, the less it will cost to fix.

Compare the effects of home-made methamphetemine (and especially the explosive rate of growth of its abuse costs) vs. drugs brought from across the border, and I think you'll be hard-pressed to argue that the effects of drugs are primarily a border-control issue.

[LilithsThrall]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

How much social cost is the result of drugs? I'm not talking about the fact that drugs are illegal, I'm talking about the loss of productivity due to addiction and associated medical problems as well as the violence? The sooner we can stop that, the less it will cost to fix.

Compare the effects of home-made methamphetemine (and especially its explosive rate of growth) vs. drugs brought from across the border, and I think you'll be hard-pressed to argue that the effects of drugs are primarily a border-control issue.

I never said that they were primarily a border-control issue. But, that doesn't mean that border-control issues aren't a factor.