Yes. Risk assessment is actually part of my duties where I work.
The funny thing about risk assessment is that people often only think of two aspects:
1. What is the downside of the risk?
2. What is the likelyhood of the risk happening?
What is ignored by most is the third aspect:
1. What is the COST of mitigation?
It’s why houses are not hardened against a meteor strike. The downside of a meteor strike is HUGE. The likelihood of it happening is minuscule, and the cost of mitigation is astronomical. So we take the risk.
And when people talk about mitigating global warming, they always leave that third one out.
But yeah, I get your point about action against Syria. FWIW, I see it as a civil war and, therefore, none of our business. My comment was more along the lines of when it IS worth the risk.
In the case where the risk is nuclear holocaust, our own existence would have to be on the line for it to be any less than insane to consider running that risk.