There is no way we can quantify the true cost of September 11^th.  We can assess the value of the buildings and contents destroyed, and the cost of clearing the debris, but there is no way to measure the cost of human misery and loss of life.  And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Prior to September 11^th the world was heading away from the cold war era.  Missiles and weaponry were being dismantled and defence budgets were being cut or were under threat.  But as a direct result of those misguided acts by a few individuals the war against terrorism was launched in Afghanistan.  Some of the costs can be quantified (if not justified; no one has produced the military cost of each terrorist captured or killed).  But again, there is no measure for the human misery and loss of life.

And the modest success of the Afghan campaign has emboldened the Pentagon.  A list is being drawn up of other countries where similar campaigns could be waged.  The tide has turned, and military might is in the ascendancy.  There is no question now of defence budgets being cut.   Who can argue against the proposed increase to the US defense budget of $48 billion?  Just imagine how that sum of money might benefit mankind if spent elsewhere!  The total cost of the five year budget plan is $2 trillion, and no doubt that figure will increase with the usual overspends on bringing prototypes into production.

Perhaps in a General’s nightmare the strategy is defensible, but even then the tactics are questionable.  Whilst building up the stocks of high-tech equipment needed to fight modern campaigns the Pentagon also seeks to spend huge sums on more traditional equipment.  The F22 Raptor was designed for the cold war, yet it takes $63 billion of the proposed budget.  The Crusader tank is too heavy for most military cargo planes, was not utilised in Afghanistan, but $11 billion will be spent on further development and production.

One is tempted to ask where it will all end.  An article in last week’s Sunday Times described a doomsday scenario.  If the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme goes off the air for a given period the commanders of Britain’s Trident submarines must presume that London and large parts of Britain have been destroyed by enemy action.  They must then open personal letters from the Prime Minister.  He will have provided instructions to follow one of four possible options.  Place themselves at the disposal of the USA; proceed to safety; discharge their nuclear weapons at the enemy; use their discretion.  No doubt there are similar instructions on nuclear submarines of other nations.

The final cost of September 11th could thus be determined not by decisions made by cabinets or governments, but by the personal wishes of a few men who would by then be dead.  The end of the world as we know it could be set in motion in ignorance of the actual sequence of events, without regard to the wishes of the electorate.  But surely, no sane human being would call for a meaningless retaliatory nuclear strike in such circumstances? 

Do you consider that the events and consequences of September 11^th make this more likely or less likely?  Please send your answer on a post card to your government representative.