I would choose the former. Ten grand won't do me any good if I'm dead, or the economy is shot because Chicago got nuked.
False dilemma.
Do you really, honestly believe that if you didn't spend $10,000, you'd be dead or we'd have a city nuked?
Frankly, I think that I'd be alive without Chicago nuked without a slim dime being spent, but regardless, there is, of course, some cost for security and it is prudent to address the situation rather than ignore it. However, recall that the Administration told us it would cost <$100 each....and now we're up to $10,000. I don't know about you, but if someone says something will be $100 and the bill comes back later as $10,000, I'd suspect the person is either dishonest--or doesn't know what he's doing.
Accepting Sec. Rumsfeld's resignation earlier is one way we could have saved lives and money, by not letting the insurgency take hold before admitting it was there (and by recognizing the mission had changed from offensive combat to counterinsurgency and the forces/stragegy/tactics had to change correspondingly). The wanton waste in the way we threw money around to villages is another--villages became experts at soaking us by sabotaging our own efforts because we'd throw more dollars their way the worse condition they were in. Etc.