I'd like to voice an opinion that i couldn't find already in the comments.
Security is a trade-off. At some point, security becomes so expensive and inconvenient that it's cheaper to address the root cause of insecurity than to pay for protection.
For instance, there is a point where avoiding generalized war or limiting climate change becomes cheaper than to protect against them.
A lot of people benefit from the war. To them, the costs of security is an externality.
I do not believe it was naive from public transport regulators, for instance, to design with the assumption that gps network would stay reliable, when the alternative is so much more expensive for all parties that it can only happen in such a state of general corruption (aka misaligned incentives) that is not worth designing for. If we are now in this prewar state, we are in much bigger troubles I'm afraid.
War is not a fatality, it's the result of some politics. Fixing political issues may be cheaper than making our highly technological society resilient.
Security is a trade-off. At some point, security becomes so expensive and inconvenient that it's cheaper to address the root cause of insecurity than to pay for protection.
For instance, there is a point where avoiding generalized war or limiting climate change becomes cheaper than to protect against them.
A lot of people benefit from the war. To them, the costs of security is an externality.
I do not believe it was naive from public transport regulators, for instance, to design with the assumption that gps network would stay reliable, when the alternative is so much more expensive for all parties that it can only happen in such a state of general corruption (aka misaligned incentives) that is not worth designing for. If we are now in this prewar state, we are in much bigger troubles I'm afraid.
War is not a fatality, it's the result of some politics. Fixing political issues may be cheaper than making our highly technological society resilient.