So by extension in the case of war on US soil you wouldn't want any government funds to be spent on the civilian collateral damage?

I understand your position, I just find it callous and I am curious how far you take it.

This is far from a fight Joe, I find skrums position fascinating and I hope he expands on his beliefs and reasoning.

what if some of those volunteers are not NY state residents

WHY HAVENT WE IMPEACHED THAT COMMUNIST MUSLIM TERORIST YET?

So if a group is getting no support, which is Sam's hypothetical, why should you volunteer someone else's money?

In regard to collateral damage to civilians, I don't know if relief of such is a function of armed forces in the field, as opposed to forces at their home stations, such as the Coast Guard. It seems a natural use of the government's enumerated military powers. When Vesuvius erupted during WWII, the Allies and Axis set up a local truce to help civilians affected by the eruption. I don't think it's the military's job to deal with collateral damage in the field.

Let me clear up my question, instead of being terrorists flying planes in the WTC it was Chinese agents or better yet missiles fired from a submarine. A act of war perpetuated by another sovereign country. Citizens not having means that would cover the detrimental health effects should just be causalities of war?

The one example I think of is Pearl Harbor. I will have to do some research in regard to who, if anyone, helped collaterally-damaged civilians.

A quick search on Wikipedia finds this:

http://archives.starbulletin.com/1999/09/13/special/index.html

Hawaii was declared a military zone. Japanese submarines continued to shell the coast. Many civilians were evacuated to the States (the article doesn't say who funded it). Civilians of Japanese ancestry were interned on the islands. Civilians helped prepare dressings for wounded while en route to the States.

The article doesn't give the motivations for what the military did, but the impression I get is that the military's function was not to help civilians but to remove them from a zone in which further military action might be expected.

I am not talking about immediate triage and care of civilians by the military. I am talking about chronic health effects from from the fallout of the attack since those wouldn't be apparent in the short term. Should the government provide anything if no other options are available.

If a nuclear weapon was detonated on US soil should the government setup a relief heath care system for those affected as the likelihood of available private and volunteer services would be sufficient to cover the numbers harmed.

For that one I would have to look up Civil Defense and CONELRAD and all the stuff we did in the fifties. Or, you could look it up yourslef and answer your own question.

I am curious what YOU think is the role of the government in these situations, not what the US did in the past. Unless your stance is the past is awesome and the present sucks and we doing it wrong.