This is why it's often good resource management to wait until something breaks before committing resources to fix it. Especially true in software systems.

One might think that constant firefighting is a waste of resources, and we'd be better off solving problems before they happen. That's true if and only if you know for sure that the problem and eventual breakage is really going to happen AND that it's worth fixing. At least in my experience, it's more often true that people overestimate the risk of calamity and waste resources fixing things that aren't actually going to break catastrophically. Or fix things that we don't actually need, but only figure out that we don't need them when they finally break and we realize that the cost of fixing or replacing it outweighs whatever value it was providing.

The engineer in me hates saying this, but sometimes things don't have to be beautifully designed and perfectly built to handle the worst. Duct tape and superglue often really is good enough.

Of course, this doesn't apply to problems that are truly existential risks. If the potential systemic breakage is so bad that it irreparably collapses the system, then active preparedness can certainly be justified.