Would you (the government) pay one dollar if a terrorist held a soldier for ransom?

     In the January of 1937 the acclaimed journalist O.O.McIntyre received a newspaper clipping that had a fun narrative printed on it. It featured a dynamic message starring media tycoon and Canadian-British politician Max Aiken also known as Lord Beaverbrook. McIntyre reports that he received the following anecdote. “They are telling this of Lord Beaverbrook and a visiting Yankee actress. In a game of hypothetical questions, Beaverbrook asked the lady: ‘Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if be paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds. What do you think I am?’ Beaverbrook replied: ‘We’ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.”
     The moral of the story is that money is of no matter, its all about the doctrine. In real life, there is no valid reason why those terrorists as illogical as they are, they still have some common sense, and using that common sense they would know that is a useless agreement, and something bigger is at play, which most countries, especially the U.S. would see right through and disagree to carry out with. If they're willing to pay one dollar why not, 10, 100, 1000, etc.
     Even if we were sure that there was absolutely no trap hidden behind this endeavor then we still couldn't pay the ransom. Paying it would compromise our hostage policy, which signals to all the other terrorists in the world that if they want money just kidnap a U.S. Soldier and hold him for ransom. As you see, this allows these kind of people to expand on these hostage situations.
     The money was never an object. The military of our nation would rather spend a million on recovering a hostage situation before spending a thousand in ransom money. If there are always means to make money some will be hopeless enough to do it.
     In the words of John Adams,"Millions for defense but not a penny for tribute.