Port Security and War on Terror - please explain

[AlexRS]

I've heard somewhere that only 5% of all containers coming into the US through ports are inspected... Is this really the case?

How do you feel about our port security?

I do not feel very good about it, and here is why. We attacked Iraq because we are afraid of WMDs. Dirty nukes, things like that. Now, making a WMD is one thing. Delivering it to the target is another.

Making a dirty nuke is much, much easier than making a transcontinental ballistic missle to deliver it. This means the best chance of us getting attacked by WMDs is by a WMD smuggled inside the country. Carrying WMD into US on an airplane is stupid. What's left? Ports and borders. What have we done NOTHING about?? PORTS and BORDERS.

[smashmowf]

Good thread....I want to see the bush lovers explain this one....

[stevenaa]

I heard the total number of containers making land fall every day. I can't remember the number, but it is hugh. Way more than could be looked at. Not sure what the answer is.

[stevenaa]

Good thread....I want to see the bush lovers explain this one....

Maybe as a Bush hater, you could provide some solutions instead of just adding vitriole.

[CandaceM23]

Carrying WMD into US on an airplane is stupid. What's left? Ports and borders. What have we done NOTHING about?? PORTS and BORDERS.[/b]

Have you not watched the news lately? We're letting the United Arab Emirates take over six of our ports .... I'm sure that will help.

I tend to stay away from these political discussions ... they get too heated too fast ....

But I've been a Bush supporter, but I don't agree with this decision. Not at all.

[rictus58]

I heard the total number of containers making land fall every day. I can't remember the number, but it is hugh. Way more than could be looked at. Not sure what the answer is.

Its been said that Singapore inspects 100% of shipments into their ports. Granted, its on a much smaller scale.

[Midnight Judges]

Maybe as a Bush hater, you could provide some solutions instead of just adding vitriole.

How about this: we take all of our troops and $$$ out of the war in Iraq and use it to actually protect ourselves by quadroupling port security.

[AlexRS]

Its been said that Singapore inspects 100% of shipments into their ports. Granted, its on a much smaller scale.

If you cannot inspect them all - why even try? Let's just swab some shoes to make people safer.

[smashmowf]

Maybe as a Bush hater, you could provide some solutions instead of just adding vitriole.

Orrrr....maybe you should pump your brakes and not assume what my stance is and understand that I am interested in seeing the various explainations since the majority of this board supports bush......

[DjTj]

How about this: we take all of our troops and $$$ out of the war in Iraq and use it to actually protect ourselves by quadroupling port security.

That's one strategy ... we could build a gigantic wall around the United States and inspect anything and everything that comes in.

Then, we wouldn't ever have to deploy troops abroad because our territory would be completely secure.

...I seem to recall the Chinese trying this in the 13th century and then something happenned with some guy named Ghengis Khan.

...I think the French also tried this before WWII, but then something happenned with some guy named Hitler.

Trying to close down our borders completely is not a viable strategy. We're never going to be able to inspect every truck coming from Mexico or every ship coming in to New York, New Orleans, and Long Beach.

Inspecting 5% of containers is a heck of a lot better than inspecting 0% though - let's look at speeding for example: The cops right now stop maybe 1% of drivers going over the speed limit. However, what if you knew that they stopped 0% of drivers? How many people would be speeding then? You'll notice this effect anytime you cross a county line into an area known for stricter enforcement of the speeding laws.

It works especially well for asymmetric warfare - if the terrorists only have one dirty bomb, they really can't risk a 5% chance that it will be discovered. They probably spent a huge chunk of change on it, and it's not like they can go back to the store and get a new one. A little bit of enforcement can go a long way.

[Redskins Diehard]

What percentage of illegal crap coming through the southern border is inspected?

[AlexRS]

That's one strategy ... we could build a gigantic wall around the United States and inspect anything and everything that comes in.

Then, we wouldn't ever have to deploy troops abroad because our territory would be completely secure.

...I seem to recall the Chinese trying this in the 13th century and then something happenned with some guy named Ghengis Khan.

...I think the French also tried this before WWII, but then something happenned with some guy named Hitler.

Trying to close down our borders completely is not a viable strategy. We're never going to be able to inspect every truck coming from Mexico or every ship coming in to New York, New Orleans, and Long Beach.

Inspecting 5% of containers is a heck of a lot better than inspecting 0% though - let's look at speeding for example: The cops right now stop maybe 1% of drivers going over the speed limit. However, what if you knew that they stopped 0% of drivers? How many people would be speeding then? You'll notice this effect anytime you cross a county line into an area known for stricter enforcement of the speeding laws.

It works especially well for asymmetric warfare - if the terrorists only have one dirty bomb, they really can't risk a 5% chance that it will be discovered. They probably spent a huge chunk of change on it, and it's not like they can go back to the store and get a new one. A little bit of enforcement can go a long way.

The question is not whether 5% is better than 0%.

The question is whether 5% is the best we can do, and whether we have been concentrating on fighting Terrorism or fighting Public Opinion.

[DjTj]

The question is not whether 5% is better than 0%.

The question is whether 5% is the best we can do, and whether we have been concentrating on fighting Terrorism or fighting Public Opinion.

In a democracy, public opinion is king.

It is for us to decide whether our leaders have chosen the best course for fighting terrorism.

In my mind, port security is not a major priority. The difference between 0% and 5% is huge, but the difference between 5% and 10% is relatively small. I would rather spend more on intelligence and to work more on diplomacy. Foreign wars and national borders may garner the most public attention, but they are not where the War on Terror will be won.

[gchwood]

why is port security even in question? As it is the job of the Coast guard to provide that security

[AlexRS]

In a democracy, public opinion is king.

It is for us to decide whether our leaders have chosen the best course for fighting terrorism.

In my mind, port security is not a major priority. The difference between 0% and 5% is huge, but the difference between 5% and 10% is relatively small. I would rather spend more on intelligence and to work more on diplomacy. Foreign wars and national borders may garner the most public attention, but they are not where the War on Terror will be won.

What does Public Opinion tell us without knowledge of how it came about? NOTHING.

Unfortunately it is not "for us to decide." It is for majority to decide, and Government is very interested in marketing the War to majority.

Unfortunately the majority seems content with letting the Government decide erverything. So no, it is not up to us to decide.

The difference between 0% and 5% is the same as between 5% and 10%. Why do you think the 0-5% jump is more significant? Just because we are doing something/anything?

Who says we have to inspect 100% of shipments? Who says we have to open each one and peer inside? Are shipments being scanned for risiduals of chemical or nuclear materials, for example?

How much have we invested to make planes more secure? How much have we invested to protect us from WMDs?

What are we afraid of here, a plane or two going down? Or a dirty nuke coming into US? What's more important?

I look around and I see overwhelming evidence that the "War on Terror" has been mostly for show.

[Winslowalrob]

We will never be truly secure. In terms of a percentage, having a lot of countries like us, in my calculation, makes us safer than having a lot of countries hate us and us inspecting x% of shipping containers.

[SkinsHokieFan]

In a democracy, public opinion is king.

It is for us to decide whether our leaders have chosen the best course for fighting terrorism.

In my mind, port security is not a major priority. The difference between 0% and 5% is huge, but the difference between 5% and 10% is relatively small. I would rather spend more on intelligence and to work more on diplomacy. Foreign wars and national borders may garner the most public attention, but they are not where the War on Terror will be won.

That right there is a profound statement. If we are battling the War on Terror in our ports we have already lost

Gotta take it to them so that nothing can even reach us here

[AlexRS]

That right there is a profound statement. If we are battling the War on Terror in our ports we have already lost

Gotta take it to them so that nothing can even reach us here

There is an unlimited number of THEM and only one of US. You cannot take it to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

[Chief skin]

A country that was accused of selling, funneling, providing nuclear components to Iran in the not so distant past. A country that 2 of the 911 terrorists came from A country with questionable motives at the very least is going to manage 6 ports on the east coast of the U.S.. Why would anyone living in a post 911 world think this is a good idea?? Just proves the point beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush is unfit for command. and the all the nonsense he spews about protecting America is just BS. This is about money and big business, a multi billion dollar deal. The President of the United States is willing and able to support this international commerece deal and blow off our security, The only thing WE THE PEOPLE can do is call Congress and remind them that in 257 days they will be asking us to support them, how can we do that if they do not support us??

[chomerics]

...I think the French also tried this before WWII, but then something happenned with some guy named Hitler.

Actually, the French in typical military fashion decided that the Maginot line did not need to go through the forest, because who would ever attack through a forest :doh: It was kind of like the "Great Wall of China" but one that concentrated all of their forces on the outskirts of the country, while leaving the capitol city vulnerable, along with an illuminated path saying "Move this way" :laugh:

[chomerics]

That right there is a profound statement. If we are battling the War on Terror in our ports we have already lost

Gotta take it to them so that nothing can even reach us here

SHF, you can't be serious?

Smuggling a nuclear warhead into this country is of no concern to you as long as we are fighting them over there?

We have two GLARING issues which go hand in hand, they are nuclear proliferation and port security. It seems to me if that I was fighting the terrorists, I would want to make sure that they could NOT get a nuclear weapon into a city by inspecting 100% of the containers that enter this country. We HAVE the technology to do it, I've seen it before. Every truck before it leaves the yard has to go through a huge x-ray machine which can detect almost anything, and yes, nuclear warheads can be detected. This, along with radiation detectors (geiger counters) could stop ANY warhead from being smuggled into this country.

I don't think he CARES about protecting us, if he really did, he would take care of stuff like this. . .Oh yea, also chemical factories are another area of concern that hasn't been dealt with, for some more food for thought.

[chomerics]

A country that was accused of selling, funneling, providing nuclear components to Iran in the not so distant past. A country that 2 of the 911 terrorists came from A country with questionable motives at the very least is going to manage 6 ports on the east coast of the U.S.. Why would anyone living in a post 911 world think this is a good idea?? Just proves the point beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush is unfit for command. and the all the nonsense he spews about protecting America is just BS. This is about money and big business, a multi billion dollar deal. The President of the United States is willing and able to support this international commerece deal and blow off our security, The only thing WE THE PEOPLE can do is call Congress and remind them that in 257 days they will be asking us to support them, how can we do that if they do not support us??

I agree with the port and UAE because it encourages trade between the two nations. The ONLY way to win this war is one through economic means, not militarily.

Now, with that being said, you still need to inspect EVERY container that enters this country, and not only is it not being done, nothing is even in the works to make it get done. What has it been 4 years since 9-11, and still I could smuggle a nuke into this country if I had the means :doh: Yep, way to go Dubya, you are really the "tough" guy. Man, and people still don't see right through the BS, it's actually mindboggling to me.

[Pete]

Good thread....I want to see the bush lovers explain this one....

Port security, or the lack there of isn't something new. It wasn't any better in the past, prior to Bush taking office, and if anything it's actually better. I'm not thrilled with the situation, but I can't blame it on Bush.

Manpower is the only thing that will improve port security.

[chomerics]

Port security, or the lack there of isn't something new. It wasn't any better in the past, prior to Bush taking office, and if anything it's actually better. I'm not thrilled with the situation, but I can't blame it on Bush.

Manpower is the only thing that will improve port security.

Pete, when Bush says he's making America safer, don't you naturally assume that he is talking about ways that we are vulnerable? Don't you agree that we are vulnerable by an attack from smuggling through our ports? Why is the lack of effort not his fault?

I mean he spent what, over $500billion so far on his war on terror counting both Iraq and supposed improvements at home, yet there is still no x-ray machines at our ports. Why do you think this is the issue? It is only money right, and do you think Americans would complain about spending money for this? Makes no sense when you actually think about it, at least form my prospective.

If your oil light keeps on going on in your car, the solution isn't to keep on puring in a quart of oil a day, it is to replace the worn out head gasket before something else goes wrong. This is a similar situation, we have something broken, our port security, and we need to fix it.

[Pete]

Pete, when Bush says he's making America safer, don't you naturally assume that he is talking about ways that we are vulnerable? Don't you agree that we are vulnerable by an attack from smuggling through our ports? Why is the lack of effort not his fault?

I mean he spent what, over $500billion so far on his war on terror counting both Iraq and supposed improvements at home, yet there is still no x-ray machines at our ports. Why do you think this is the issue? It is only money right, and do you think Americans would complain about spending money for this? Makes no sense when you actually think about it, at least form my prospective.

If your oil light keeps on going on in your car, the solution isn't to keep on puring in a quart of oil a day, it is to replace the worn out head gasket before something else goes wrong. This is a similar situation, we have something broken, our port security, and we need to fix it.

If you look at my post and take it at face value, then you would understand it. It was fairly simple, and I clearly was addressing the point that the lack of port security not falling on Bush alone. Why isn't Clinton to blame? How about the past four or five administrations? It's been an ongoing problem for a long time, and to place the blame on Bush alone is just silly. We have been complacent in this country for decades, and some how it's all Bush's fualt? I'm not in love with the guy, but people look to blame long running problems on one person. You know....."Blamestorming"

I also said that I'm not thrilled with the situation. I don't understand what's so hard to grasp about that. We need to improve port security. We also need to improve border and airport security. I didn't think I needed to go into so much detail to be understood.

Your a very well versed person, so how about you document just how well the last 4 administrations including the current one, have improved the security of our ports, borders, and air ports. Prove here and now how our past presidents have done so much better then Bush at protecting the public.

Then and only then will I take your opinion as something more then "Blamestorming".