The Terrible 'Ifs'

The US employs a version or the precautionary principle when it confronts threats to national security. Critics of the precautionary principle charge that it is a justification for regulation, not its cause -- that the principle's defenders care more about the environment than other public goods. Defenders of the principle claim that cost-benefit analysis serves corporate bottom lines. The elements of the national security establishment do not have the same interests and thus do not promote the same possible threats. The Department of Homeland Security warns of disasters and vulnerabilities that terrorists might exploit. The missile defense agency warns of missiles. The services themselves are divided into sub-communities that sometimes compete. Air Force space command warns of threats to satellites while the rest of the Air Force promotes threats that could require strategic airpower. Debates about national security could use more truly independent experts. More think tanks that encourage a contrarian ethos would be helpful, as would more academic security specialists.