Why after a devastating event does the politicians finally take measures to make sure it don't happen again?!

Question

I mean take California and its history of wild fires that found the government unprepared for the consequences. Now, when the weather announces that a santa ana wind condition is likely to occur, they finally take preventive measures to ward off excessive damage like putting extra equipment in strategic spots and ordering extra aircraft and making it ready to go in case of disastor. This is something that should have been done in the first place instead of having all of that red tape which would have saved a lot of lives and property.......

Answer 1

This is a difficult calculation to make on whether preventative measures should be taken. And even after it can be determined that such measures should be taken, it can be hard to convince people to take them.
Three things have to be taken into account :
1) What is the likely hood of a particular type of devastating event happening ?
2) What would be the cost of it if it did happen ?
3) What would be the cost of preventing it or taking measures to lessen the damage if it couldn't be avoided ?
If it can be shown after these three questions are answered that's it's worthwhile to take preventive measures, there is still the problem of people taking the threat seriously, and having them pay for the necessary measures to reduce potential damage.
Take hurricane Katrina for instance. Would the people of New Orleans have been willing to build stronger levees if they knew how much danger they were in ? Did they have good reason to believe that such a devastating hurricane would hit their city ? Did they have more pressing issues where to spend their money ?
Hindsight is always 20/20. It takes wise people to make choices like that. And there aren't enough of them.

Answer 2

North Koreans grab united statesPueblo and 80 3 guy group contained in the sea of Japan Communist troops assault Saigon and 30 province capitals contained in the "Tet Offensive" Martin Luther King is assassinated in Memphis, TN Senator Robert F. Kennedy is shot in California after celebrating presidential accepted victories American troops injury a city in South Vietnam contained in the "My Lai bloodbath" u.s. Congress repeals the requirement for a gold reserve to decrease back US foreign places money scholar protesters at Columbia college in long island city take over administration homes and close down the college

Answer 3

The American people don't find pre-emptive action valuable.
They even doubt its legality.

For instance: Bush's pre-emption in Iraq. Instead of Al Queda consolidated in US ports, they are consolidated in Iraq.
The American people finally got a politician with the vision and courage to take the war to the enemy instead of discussing it endlessly like we did prior to pearl harbor, and everyone wants him hung from the nearest tree. They say the action is "a war of choice", illegal pre-emption, politically incorrect, interventionism, imperialism, colonialism, immoral, illegal and impeachable crimes against humanity.

NO. The American people don't have the stomach for preventive maintenance. They would rather wait until the breakdown and blame everyone else for the disaster and pay triple the price to clean up the mess.

Answer 4

How does it feel to have simple answers to complex questions. You are the epitome of a liberal who thinks the world should bow down and lick his stinky blue cheese infested toes.

Answer 5

We have break down government . They do not care for any one but the governments survival and its growth. So their is no interest in maintaining this country.

Answer 6

It is what happens when every other country is more important than your own.