Rather than provide a plan and funding to pay for damages from a terror attack, why don’t they simply provide a plan and budget for a “Terrorist Elimination Plan”?I’m sure we can muster a compelling force of qualified mercenaries significantly reduce the threat.
“requirement that insurance companies make available coverage against nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological (NBCR) attacks, a provision not welcome by all insurers.”
Of course it’s not welcome by insurers; that’s because it’s their money. There’s nothing that governments do better than spend other people’s money.
Rather than provide a plan and funding to pay for damages from a terror attack, why don’t they simply provide a plan and budget for a “Terrorist Elimination Plan”?I’m sure we can muster a compelling force of qualified mercenaries significantly reduce the threat.
“requirement that insurance companies make available coverage against nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological (NBCR) attacks, a provision not welcome by all insurers.”
Of course it’s not welcome by insurers; that’s because it’s their money. There’s nothing that governments do better than spend other people’s money.