Considering the likelihood of a nuclear attack I have to say a civil defense program to protect against that to be a waste.

Any nuclear event would be single, lone, and isolated. We aren't facing a "blanket" attack on the country. For every city to be covered, every suburb, every town and village to have shelters would be a waste.

I think most retrofitted earthquake protection to be a waste for the same reasons. The likelihood of a devastating earthquake over the life of most existing structures is minimal, and it's not cost-effective to try to protect them until they can be torn down.

As for the lives saved, in airplanes the value of a life v. safety is something on the order of $1,000,000. That's the value on the "sanctity of life" placed by Big Business and Big Government.

If one really wanted to protect life, one would look harder at cars, drivers, booze and other drugs. But one doesn't.

So, in short, I believe in this day and age Civil Defense would be a waste. Food stocks would always be nice, but how often are they needed? An exception is Southern and Central California, which lies along the faults. And in those cases I'd have to say that those folks know it's coming, and have a responsibility to either take care of themselves or move. There are already areas which charge lost climbers and hikers for rescue - charge folks in known earthquake hazard areas for rescue, don't pay 'em for being silly.

I also think rebuilding New Orleans is completely ridiculous. A bit like refloating the Titanic for the winter route to Murmansk. My solution there is to give anyone who moves back a pair of waterwings and flippers and wish 'em well. Yer on yer own. They would be very good waterwings and flippers, though. First rate. Built to FEMA specs.

It's called "freedom", personal responsibility, less government intrusion.

Arf