If one is going to do a risk management assessment properly, one must enumerate the risks, enumerate the benefits, enumerate the costs, figure the impact of any mitigation and figure the probability of the event in the first place (and this list is just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's a couple more that I am forgetting).
A proper risk management process is iterative including assessing the risks/benefits of proposed "mitigation". This is something often overlooked especially by the "do something" political contingent.
Terrorism IS NOT a imagined problem - there are several buildings missing from NYC and several large passenger planes destroyed just from 9/11.
Even the 9/11 attacks rate as minor in terms of preventable causes of death. It's quite possible that people switching to more dangerous forms of transport, such as driving, has killed many more Americans than these attacks. That's before even considering those killed in the name of the "War on Terror".
When "doing something" means you are forcing the poor of the world to live with the cost of higher energy prices (ie, higher food costs), one really has to question the motivation of the ones proposing these ideas (and if you don't think this is a the case, just look at what the production of ethanol and the diversion of corn to make this "green" fuel have caused).
It gets even dafter when some forms of "green" energy turn out to have a similar, even higher, "carbon footprint" in comparison with whatever they are ment to replace.
Yet we pump billions into the defense against terrorism, but we keep bickering on whether or not Global Warming may or may not happen. Anyone able to explain the sense in that?
The comparison stilll holds. Huge quanities of money are also pumped into AGW. With, at best, showing as much benefit as the billions spent of a minority of terrorrism. (In the case of the "War on Terror" the US Government has has never cutoff it's own sponsorship of terrorists. Or even taken on board that the average terrorist within the US is most likely to be motivated by anti-abortion or animal rights.)