[Leica] Jeffery is OK/ answering JB

[tim at KairosPhoto.com (Timothy Atherton)]

 > > But the military doesn't routinely PLAN for these kinds of rescue
 > > evolution. It's not their primary mission.
 > >
 > > No one plans for things like this - the submergance of a city is not
 > > common. Could the EU do better if, say, Venice sank? I don't think so.

Baloney - there is no reason they shouldn't be planning for these kind of
events. I know for sure the British Military plans for massive Disaster and
Civil Defence missions such as this - at one time I was involved in just
such planning.

It's simply bad leadership and lack of vision to have massive resources tied
up and stuck in places they can't be used.

I don't know about the US but most other developed countries routinely do
this kind of planning and their military have a clear Civil Defence/Disaster
role. (A totally different type of event, the military in the UK was fully
mobilised to deal with the Foot and Mouth crisis a few years ago - the point
is, they could be mobilised and general plans were in place).

In addition, this disaster was neither unforeseen nor entirely a "natural"
disaster FEMA studies in 2001 apparently listed it as one of the top three
potential disasters in the US (along with a terror attack on NY city). The
US Army Corps of Engineers had it funding for expanding protection of New
Orleans from flooding cut by 44% (said funding apparently diverted to Iraq),
as well as their study of flooding following a disaster scrapped last year.
Finally, the ban on developing the wetlands around New Orleans was lifted by
the Administration in 2003. The wetlands provide the flooding buffer for the
city - developing them reduces that buffer dramatically.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune, headline online was: "No one can say they
didn't see it coming ..."

Those who knew could see this coming - they were prevented from studying the
problem and putting the resources in to helping prevent it.


tim a