Skip to comments.
Rand Corp. warns of shipping terror threat
The Washington Times ^
| 9/23/03
| UPI
Posted on 09/24/2003 7:01:37 AM PDT by Nexus
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:40:41 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-23 last
To: ErnBatavia
Because the refiners mark up the price 700%?
21
posted on
09/25/2003 10:00:27 AM PDT
by
Dr. Eckleburg
(There are very few shades of gray.)
To: Nexus
It's probably already happened. I'd be willing to bet that weapons of mass destruction have already been smuggled into the country. There will be another attack. It's just a matter of "when" not "if."
To: ErnBatavia
Yeah, the math is funky somewhere. I doubt the "882,020 tonne" figure. That almost 2 billion pounds.
US Aircraft carriers displace less than 100,000 tons, fully loaded.
If I was to guess, I'd say that the tanker was holding 882.02 tonnes; about 300,000 gallons.
As for the article, DUH. Lots of people have pointed out the container shipping "vulnerability." It didn't take a RAND study to figure this one out.
23
posted on
09/25/2003 10:15:49 AM PDT
by
Cboldt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-23 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