Posted on 04/14/2002 5:58:25 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
On September 11, Americans discovered that a civilian airline jet could be turned into a flying bomb. Now, the respected Economist magazine is warning that container ships could be the next terrorist vehicle.
Each year, more than 7,500 commercial vessels make approximately 51,000 port calls, off-loading six million loaded marine containers in U.S. ports. Current growth predictions indicate the container cargo will quadruple in the next 20 years.
One serious worry is that terrorists might use one of these ships to transport and then explode nuke in a major U.S. port -- perhaps crippling the U.S. economy as the nation's stream of commerce stops in a self imposed protective embargo.
And the experts agree there is no silver bullet to prevent such a catastrophe.
Already, the U.S. Coast Guard is employing highly sensitive equipment to check ships for radioactive material. But such checks are not fool-proof, nor can the Coast Guard scan all ships for the potentially lethal material.
Another concern is that the terrorists may use an oil tanker as a way to collapse the U.S. economy.
Noted journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave, in a special "Off the Record” briefing to NewsMax readers warns that terrorists have already talked and bragged about being able to explode a fully loaded oil tanker as it passes through the Straits of Hormuz.
Such a disaster, de Borchgrave says, would close the narrow straits, and send the world economy into a tailspin. For more on de Borchgrave’s revelations, click here.
But just how likely are such attacks?
Ominously, an al-Qaida manual discovered in the United Kingdom said seaport workers could make good recruits.
Furthermore, bin Laden is said to own a fleet of freighters, already put to use smuggling explosives into Africa for the 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.
Other unhappy factoids: the Philippines, home to more than one militant group, is the world's biggest crew supplier. And Indonesia, headquarters for many radical Muslim groups, comes in second at supplying crews for the nettlesome container ships.
But the worst news is that the vulnerability of the critical supply line has already been illustrated -- in spades. Italian authorities recently found a suspected al-Qaida member inside a sealed container headed for Canada.
Only Two Percent Inspected
With the stowaway were mobile phones, false credit cards, plane tickets and certifications identifying the man as an airplane mechanic.
Presently only about two percent of containers arriving in the U.S. are inspected. And according to recent Hill testimony, even if that level reached 100 percent, the danger would not be neutralized because if the infiltrated cargo even arrives at the U.S. port it may be too late.
One possible scenario: an electronic data system that would allow U.S. authorities to know in advance the origin, contents and shipper of each container – before it is ever loaded at the point of shipment.
This would allow U.S. authorities to target the most vulnerable or suspicious shipments, possibly rerouting and inspecting them before they arrive in the U.S.
One important fault in this plan is apparent, however, say the experts. Digitized or not, presently, the maritime industry's documentation is unreliable.
In one instance, U.S. Customs audited 181 ships and found 96 had more or fewer containers on board than identified. What’s more, bills of lading describing the containers’ contents also were incomplete or falsified.
And erroneous or not, the volume of paperwork is mountainous. The movement of each container is part of a transaction that can involve a score or more different parties: buyers, sellers, inland freighters and shipping lines, middlemen, financiers and governments.
A single transaction can crank out 30-40 documents, and each container can carry cargo for several customers, even further multiplying the swamp of documents.
Expensive Gadgets
In the meantime, good intelligence and a handful of expensive gadgets are serving on the front lines of port security. The current mainstay: a $1.2 million per copy gamma-ray machine.
Loaded on trucks, the machine's long white arm makes the device resemble a electric company's cherry picker. Dubbed "VACIS”, the acronym for Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System, the machine sprays containers with gamma rays, producing a blurry X-ray-like image of what's inside. It takes skilled and experienced operators to make sense of the images.
But even with VACIS, the logistics of expanding the token inspections are daunting. According to the Charleston, S. C. customs office, its two dozen inspectors can’t possibly keep up with the crushing volume of cargo pouring through the southern port’s terminals.
"There are days when we have 10 ships coming in, and they might be spread across several terminals,” explained one customs official.
The same hectic scene is duplicated at all the nation’s ports where staff levels have actually decreased over the years, despite the fact that container volume has doubled since 1993.
So what can be done to help make ports safe?
Part of the answer may rest with new technologies. Ancore Corp. of Santa Clara, Calif., for example, is making new machines that use laser-like beams of neutrons that can identify trace amounts of drugs or explosive residues.
Being considered: having the U.S. push its borders out and pre-screen containers in specially created security zones before they are loaded on to ships in foreign ports. Done with the cooperation of the foreign authorities, American inspectors would be on hand to aid local officials.
Robert Bonner, the head of the US Customs Service, wants to kick off such a plan by focusing on the top ten container ports that trade with the U.S. and funneling as many containers as possible through approved gateways. The top ten would include Hong Kong, Rotterdam and Shanghai.
Ideas From Private Sector
Private enterprise has its own ideas. In recent congressional testimony, Wayne Gibson, senior vice president of Global Logistics for the Home Depot suggested, "a well-controlled supply chain can serve as a foundation upon which security measures can be built.
"While we source from over 40 countries and 268 vendors and 555 factories, 80 percent of that comes from five countries and 40 vendors. We had over 50,000 POs inspected in 2001. And 100 percent of our shipments were inspected.”
And the Coast Guard is hard at work figuring a solution. Captain Anthony Regalbutto, chief of port security for the United States Coast Guard recently told Congress, "We're trying to establish two centers -- one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast.
In those fusion centers will be representatives from the various government agencies, including Customs and INS and Office of Naval Intelligence and others, that will be able, then, to look at the information that's coming in and then pre-screen the information.”
Regalbutto is also looking at or prototyping a canine program for the Coast Guard for the first time. "That's something that we want to prototype and we think that, again, with our marine safety and security teams as they go on board ships, particularly if we have intel information that we suspect one ship, hopefully the dogs will be able to help us in that sensing ability.”
Who's in Charge
One Hill witness, however, voiced concern that the salient issue must be a hammering out of just who is in charge. Christopher Koch, president and chief executive officer, World Shipping Council: "Customs is presently modernizing and adjusting its information systems, which will cost over $1 billion and is planning on using their systems as part of the Container Security Initiative. Are the Customs systems what the government will use?
"The government should establish one system, not competing information systems. If the advanced cargo information system used for security screening is not Customs' job, the White House or the Congress should make that clear immediately because Customs thinks that it is and is acting accordingly.”
And, finally, who’s going to pay the tab?
Basil Maher, president and chief operating officer of Maher Terminals, Inc., Jersey City, N.J., suggested to Congress that legislation must not assess fees or tax terminal operators or carriers for costs properly borne by the federal government.
"If any additional federal revenue needs to be raised for cargo transportation security purposes, it should come from existing federal revenue streams relating to cargo, which uses this system of ships, terminals, rails and trucks,” Maher said.
One thing all agree on: security procedures must be implemented in a manner that does not disrupt terminal operations and the $400 billion in commerce it supports.
Are they bringing LNG tankers back into the terminal in New England? I know they suspended that for a while. Would LNG really explode, or just burn back to the tank, and then gassify the LNG as it came out and burn in a spectacular fashion?
A very good question.
Regards
J.R.
Or how about maybe five or ten such containers goingoff at the same time on the same train with all the other stuff aboard such a freight train? Such is possible and easily arranged.
Are they bringing LNG tankers back into the terminal in New England? I know they suspended that for a while. Would LNG really explode, or just burn back to the tank, and then gassify the LNG as it came out and burn in a spectacular fashion?
When they brought up the whole issue in public hearings a few years back it was pointed out that given a sufficent breach of the tank it would be possible to have the tanker explode and have a total detonation of about 15 to 20 twenty KT equivalent. According to Local notice to mariners they have resumed.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Do the same for the middle east.
Check back in a decade, and see who has a tightened belt, and who has starved to death.
Imagine that HAZMAT train in the tunnel under the city, with the ANFO containers detonating at each end.
A GLOBAL FUEL IN ITS OWN RIGHT
MAY, 1997
SIDEBAR: A new "big bang" theory
Mention oil and the environment, and it is easy to conjure up images of exhaust fumes and the tar strewn beaches around the Exxon Valdez. Natural gas, on the other hand, has a much better reputation. It burns more "cleanly" than other fossil fuels, and if a liquid natural gas (LNG) tanker goes aground, its cargo reverts to gas and escapes into the air.
Why then, are cargos of the eco-friendly fuel treated with such caution. Because as Lieutenant Commander Mark Skordinski of the United States Coast Guard in Boston points out, "There is a great potential for energy." The chances of a disaster transporting LNG gas are widely regarded as minimal, but there is a caveat-if it happened, the cost would be measured in human lives rather than environmental damage.
Natural gas-largely methane-is much more explosive than crude oil, and experience storing and transporting it on dry land has shown that catastrophic accidents can happen. In 1973 an LNG storage tank on Staten Island, New York, blew up, killing 40 people. Eleven years later, 334 people died in Mexico City when a gas storage area exploded, and over 600 died in 1992 after a pipeline explosion in the former Soviet Union.
To prevent a LNG tanker from exploding near an urban area, elaborate precautions are taken. Most LNG tankers, though large, are double hulled and the LNG is contained in separate compartments further limiting any large scale leaks.
When a LNG tanker calls on the port of Boston, where the city surrounds the harbor, everything stops. It can only enter the harbor after it has passed a stringent safety inspection, transit only during daylight hours under good visibility and proceed very slowly while all other vessels stand clear up to a minimum of 2 miles ahead and 1 mile astern of the ship. And when it passes by Logan International Airport, all planes must be rerouted so as not to fly over the tanker.
The flight restriction over these vessels is not only in place to protect the ship from any crashing planes-they also aim to protect the aircraft. The LNG inside the ship could unexpectedly and embarrassingly vent, creating a gaseous cloud which would rise up to greet incoming planes. If the weather is still that day the gas cloud might not dissipate and could be ignited by the planes engines.
-By Omar Younes
Regards
J.R. © The WorldPaper (US). All Rights reserved.
Yes,I see a better and less complicated method of attack utilizing the same material,and NO,I will NOT comment on it.
As for "protection to prevent it",there ain't no such critter,other than luck. Granted,you make a lot of your own "luck" in the intelligence business by the way you conduct yourself and treat your assets,but even then there are no guarantees. The sooner people wake up to the fact that the government can NOT give them 100% protection for all harm,the better off everybody will be.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed -Yorktown
It will not give you much hope that the limp wristed PC analyst clones running CIA ops worldwide could find their rear ends with both hands, since they don't speak the languages, never leave the embassy rows, and consider getting down into the allies dirty, dangerous, and to be totally avoided at all costs.
ROFLMAO -The level of security is better than nothing but not very high. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
It sounds like something "our guys" should be considering for delivery of a powerful "bitch slap" to our former friends and allies in the desert.....
Semper Fi
It's a grim situation.
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.