Skip to comments.
U.S. Hiring Hong Kong Co. To Scan Nukes
AP ^
| 3-23-06
| TED BRIDIS
Posted on 03/23/2006 2:49:54 PM PST by My Favorite Headache
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-153 next last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Bahmmas, Panama, they wanted to be in LA. This outift is closely affiliated with the PLA, and IMHO, is a front organization for them. Of course, in their communist government you could (and probably should) consider the same thing for almost any major commercial player.
I believe it is a mistake to give them any level of access to our sophisticated detection equipment. Armed with any significant data or information, they would be in a better position to defeat it at some point in the future.
Particularly given the Pentagons's assessment of China in its last annual report, this is not a good move at all. China should be treated in the same manner that Reagan treated the Societ Union. They are the evil empire of our day, and given their economic position, they have the potential of being a much greater threat, IMHO, than the Soviets were.
101
posted on
03/24/2006 6:54:42 AM PST
by
Jeff Head
(www.dragonsfuryseries.com)
To: My Favorite Headache
The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration is negotiating the Bahamas contract under a $121 million security program it calls the "second line of defense." Wilkes, the NNSA spokesman, said the Bahamian government dictated that the U.S. give the contract to Hutchison.
"It's their country, their port. The driver of the mobile carrier is the contractor selected by their government. We had no say or no choice," he said. "We are fortunate to have allies who are signing these agreements with us." The headline is completely dishonest.
102
posted on
03/24/2006 6:57:41 AM PST
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: kanawa
Saying it raises questions is not enough. Where was he on TV, pounding on the table, screaming and hollering.
Chucky went absent when he was most needed.
103
posted on
03/24/2006 7:39:03 AM PST
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: rightinthemiddle
>The MSM knows how to play conservatives like a fiddle to foment unrest within our ranks
|
In a perverse way, a lot of Freepers will be thrilled when Hillary
moves to the White House. Then their paranoia and free-floating terror
will have clear focus. This business of trembling at what good guys do sucks . . .
|
To: Fitzcarraldo
Nah, we'll dust off China economically in the long run. There's a whole new generation of technology products being developed right now, mainly in American companies.
Taiwan will ultimately decide to buy those destroyers and subs from us. So China will be unable to conquer them, simply because Taiwan is an island nation and ships with big holes in their sides sink rapidly.
God is still in control, and evil will still be defeated in the long run.
105
posted on
03/24/2006 8:05:43 AM PST
by
carl in alaska
(The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
To: theFIRMbss
Good post. This AP article is a bad joke. On the subject of national security, rated on a scale of 1-10, the Bush Administration is about a 8.7, while the Clinton Administration was an epic disaster for America and I give them a 1.5 rating.
106
posted on
03/24/2006 8:08:06 AM PST
by
carl in alaska
(The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I don't think that's an issue because the operators cannot see the output from the scanner, so they have no way of knowing what kind of shielding can defeat it. Our people figured this out when they designed the scanners.
107
posted on
03/24/2006 8:11:17 AM PST
by
carl in alaska
(The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
National security people in the Bush Administration are generally very smart. You just have to dig for information to get the whole story, because the MSM is now trying to slant these stories to make the Bush Administration look bad. It's time to start reviewing MSM stories and looking for outright fabrications.
108
posted on
03/24/2006 8:13:43 AM PST
by
carl in alaska
(The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm thinking that a RICO lawsuit in response to an outright fabrication by the MSM could have some postitive effects.
109
posted on
03/24/2006 8:16:31 AM PST
by
carl in alaska
(The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
To: carl in alaska
There's a whole new generation of technology products being developed right now, mainly in American companies. Please, elaborate on this.
To: carl in alaska
I don't think that's an issue because the operators cannot see the output from the scanner, so they have no way of knowing what kind of shielding can defeat it. Our people figured this out when they designed the scanners.
They don't have to see the output from the scanner.
They just need to see the reaction from Customs.
The box makes it to its destination or it doesn't. Duh
111
posted on
03/24/2006 8:56:48 AM PST
by
UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
(Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
We know how to disguise the reaction by Customs so as not to give any information to the Chinese screeners. It would look like there's no reaction, but then customs sezes the container in another area out of view of all foreign workers. Duh.
112
posted on
03/24/2006 9:38:28 AM PST
by
carl in alaska
(The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
To: Fitzcarraldo
Oh geez, where do I start? Well I need to do some research into the Tech sector anyway for my business. I haven't been paying enough attention to technology R&D lately. I'll try to get back to you with a good answer in 2-3 weeks. Hope you can wait that long. One new product I have read about lately is televison over IP (internet). Cisco is working hard on this "monster application" and it should be in your town within a year or two.
113
posted on
03/24/2006 9:41:13 AM PST
by
carl in alaska
(The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
An even better answer is this: I believe we're just talking about sealed shipping containers here that the screeners do not open and inspect. They just scan the sealed containers. So the screeners would have no idea what kind of shielding is being used to shield nuclear material. Customs could just seize a sealed container and the screeners would have no idea why it was seized. They would probably be thinking..."must be drugs in there."
If we seize an open contaner after it's inspected, then we would need to do that out of view of foreign workers.
114
posted on
03/24/2006 9:47:23 AM PST
by
carl in alaska
(The raven watching news of the Florida recounts stirred and spoke. Quoth the raven..."NeverGore.")
To: carl in alaska
Oh geez, where do I start? Well I need to do some research into the Tech sector anyway for my business. I haven't been paying enough attention to technology R&D lately. I'll try to get back to you with a good answer in 2-3 weeks. Hope you can wait that long. One new product I have read about lately is televison over IP (internet). Cisco is working hard on this "monster application" and it should be in your town within a year or two. What prevents China from taking whatever we develop in the US in advanced technology and appropriating it? I think the point now has been reached where nothing can be kept from them.
To: carl in alaska
The last line said more than "duh".
The box reaches its destination or it doesn't. Duh
The Chinese just have to have their people in a position to know if the goods reached point of sale. Don't even have to directly handle it.
116
posted on
03/24/2006 9:52:05 AM PST
by
UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
(Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
To: My Favorite Headache
About a dozen years ago I worked for a company in the LA area that was owned by a Hong Kong corporation. I was only there a couple of months but I learned one thing. These people are rabid capitalists. Anyone from Hong Kong somehow knows how to get any product made or manufactured. Everyone wants a piece of the deal. They drive, drive, drive to close a deal and make a cut. The only ideology they have is "success." Everything is about success. The best compliment they can bestow on anyone is that they are successful.
This deal does not concern me in the least. The Chicoms simply can't control them and their business dealings. Their need to succeed and profit runs too broad and too deep.
I also believe that this capitalist trend will silently sweep all of China before long. It will be a silent revolution. You really have to spend a few months working with them to get an appreciation for what I'm talking about.
117
posted on
03/24/2006 10:01:50 AM PST
by
ElkGroveDan
(California bashers will be called out)
To: NormsRevenge
Thanks, I was sure they were doing something at the canal.
To: carl in alaska
God is still in control, and evil will still be defeated in the long run.My dad, a Baptist minister early in his life always said, God helps those who help themselves!!!
To: My Favorite Headache
Why can't they just get a West Virginia Company??
120
posted on
03/24/2006 10:26:10 AM PST
by
mtntop3
("He who must know before he believes will never come to full knowledge.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-153 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson