Replies

"To Southack: much of what you say is true but they are of no relevance whatsoever if 1) they do not make America safer (that means if a terrorist's ability to set off a weapon of mass destruction and an American city), or 2) if Iran gets the bomb. As to 1) the idea that we can attride enough terrorists so that the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world cannot find another 19 suicide murderers is preposterous. We are demonstrating to the world that we cannot inflict enough casualties in this kind of asymmetrical warfare that our domestic consensus will endure. The idea of killing terrorists in Iraq so that another 19 cannot attack America again, is the policy of shoveling flies. As to 2) if Iran gets the bomb everything we have gained and sacrificed for in Iraq and elsewhere will be marginalized into insignificance. I think James Baker sees that too."

Rubbish.

Our radiation detectors are in place. You can't even drive a truck in from Mexico with Mexican potting soil (less radiation in that than in a common banana peel) without setting off our alarms and drawing in an immediate response.

The whole Free Republic phrase "stunned my beeber" comes from a Freeper going/coming to/from Canada after a cancer radiation treatment was surrounded by the good guys, and that was years ago.

The radiation detection system is in place on land, sea, and air. This is also how we caught Libya's 3 ships with centrifuges on board, as the near-spotless centrifuges had *traces* of radiation still on them, buried deep under shielding in the hold of each ship (some radiation can't be shielded, it turns out).

We're boarding ships at sea that set off these detectors...long before they reach a port.

So there isn't going to be a nuclear attack (OK, maybe a locally-produced dirty bomb or two that the news media will go nuts about) on the U.S.

Nor will we be hit by a rogue ICBM (e.g. from North Korea), as our missile defense system has the sea-born and land-based legs in place, with 9 successful interceptions in a row (last hit-to-kill miss was back in 2001).

And this isn't about killing 1.3 Muslims. It's a multi-pronged strategy of killing the most radical jihadists while winning over their moderates (e.g. getting them voting in their own elections rather than stabbing each other).

So there aren't going to be new 9/11 terror attacks here in the U.S., nor will there be WMD attacks against us here (save for the occasional worthless dirty bomb or some bug or comparitively weak chemical attack).

They'll blow up a few McDonald's with suiciders, of course, and snipe at a few cars, set a few forests on fire...but those aren't civilization-shattering types of attacks.

In the meantime, most of their efforts are concentrated in Iraq, far from our shores, even as our shores grow more protected and safer every day.

As an investor who has had occasion to research the market for machines capable of detecting bombs and radiation as well as chemicals at our airports and ports, I was astonished to read your analysis which says, in effect, that our borders are perfectly secure.

I know this to be 180° contrary to the Rudman report which identified ports, for example, and the threat of nuclear weapons in containers to be virtually wide open.

So I googled and came up with a speech by David Obie, yes I know he's a left-wing Democrat out to undermine the administration, but let's read what he has to say in his speech given to the Commonwealth club on June 2 of 2004, and determine if any of it is true:

Last year, the White House reversed themselves and finally requested a portion of the funds that were needed for container security. Their position changed from, “we can’t afford it” to “we needed to wait.” That is a turnaround and I suppose we should welcome it. But the $126 million that the President has proposed for fiscal year 2005 will not adequately fund the program. It will not even allow us to fully staff the 45 foreign ports where DHS had planned to inspect all manifest documents. It will not permit our current foreign inspection programs to become permanent. We are currently in only 17 ports. We currently have no container security presence in China, the biggest U.S. trading partner in terms of cargo containers. The number of cargo containers arriving to the U.S. from China is more than three times those arriving from Hong Kong.

More troubling than the mere question of resources is the lack of political or bureaucratic clout behind this critical initiative. If having inspection agents working with foreign customs officials is to be a truly effective means of understanding what is in foreign ships before they leave for U.S. ports, it requires developing long term relationships between our agents and those who control the foreign ports we wish to monitor.

This involves a new level of training and expertise for our customs agents. It involves establishing continuity in the relationship we have with host governments in terms of what we expect to get and what incentives we can provide to those who cooperate. Nothing could be more destructive to this effort than to rotate in and out of foreign ports agents with only a few months of experience based on a deliberate system of staffing through temporary assignment. But that is precisely what we have done. In the few foreign ports where we do have a presence, that presence is a U.S. customs officer detailed there on a six-month temporary duty assignment. Those agents don’t even know what the problems were between the U.S. and the host government when the program was initiated. They are certainly not people that officials of the host government would want to invest much time in getting to know — they will be gone before there is any pay off from developing a relationship.

If the overseas effort to identify the contents of cargo containers is the outer perimeter for protecting our ports, the ability of the Coast Guard to interdict, board and inspect U.S. bound shipping at sea is the next perimeter. Yet the Coast Guard’s capacity to perform that function has also been restrained by lack of resources. The Administration frequently states that the Coast Guard is now boarding all vessels that are deemed to be “high interest.” That means 80 percent of all other vessels are not boarded.

Observing, tracking, and controlling ships as they approach and enter into American waters is the next perimeter in securing our ports. Systems have been developed that are very similar to the systems by which air traffic control directs airplanes entering into U.S. airspace and approaching U.S. airports. These systems, however, are available in only nine ports, leaving 45 major ports without such a system. Again, this is penny wise and pound foolish. It is also a bad decision in terms of long-term cost effectiveness. More automated systems permit more rapid detection of ships that are not following control directives; they can be operated by fewer people and are long-term cost savers.

And, inside our ports, there are numerous critical issues. One is preventing unauthorized persons from having access to ships, containers, or port storage areas. A second is protecting hazardous chemicals and materials from attack. The Coast Guard estimated that the 185 commercial seaports in the United States would need about $7 billion to assess vulnerabilities and take necessary action to correct those vulnerabilities. These port authorities do not, in most instances, have the revenue raising authority to pay any significant portion of these costs. This year was the first time the Administration requested any money whatsoever for this purpose, and it only requested $46 million. The Congress has been able to appropriate only $587 million or less than 10 percent of the money needed to do the job

Do you have any citations for your assertions?

What really is "rubbish" is to distort someone's words and so they imply exactly the opposite of what was intended. I don't say we are supposed to kill 1.3 billion Muslims but I do say that you cannot wage asymmetrical war of attrition in places like Iraq and hope thereby to forestall 19 terrorists, recruited out of 1.3 billion Muslims, attacking America.

You have not convinced me that our borders are secure against viruses, chemicals, or even small atomic bombs-and these are civilization shattering attacks, not to mention the catastrophic economic consequences.

I ask again, do you have citations?