Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
And I continue to learn. I still feel that Homeland security funds are better spent shoring up the most likely and damaging threats (i.e. a focus on N.Y., L.A. and major ports as opposed to millions spent in the high threat state of Montana), but I think we have effectivly concluded that domestic terrorism is real and valid. Thanks for the feedback and open discussion.
Reed
I must have overlooked this post.

There is a reason, besides pork-barrel spending, that homeland defense dollars are distributed to states such as Montana, which at first blush appear to be rather non-critical to acts of terror.

The first reason being, is that the nation's heartland has a particular weakness that can be targeted by terrorists. I don't particularly want to discuss it on an unsecure forum, but if you do a bit of research, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

The second reason being that in the case of a massive and crippling terror attack, the outlying non-population intensive or untargeted states will be responsible for reacting to the event, as their infrastructure and polity will still be intact.

It only seems dumb if you don't think it through. In reality, spending homeland security funds in out of the way places is quite a good idea. The latest near miss hurricane on New Orleans is illustrative in how relatively unaffected states were able to rapidly respond to support the affected area.