[codingdave]

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]

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]

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]

This analogy is a fallacy that holds us back. MMT states that our nation is not a house.