English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In June of last year, nearly $650 million to increase scrutiny of containers shipping into Seattle and every other U.S. port was stripped out of a national security funding package.

Opponents said it was too expensive.

Currently, only about 5 percent of U.S.-bound containers are inspected.

Smaller container ships carry between 4,500 - 6,500 containers, and the newer ones carry about 15,000.

Each year, more than 7,500 commercial vessels make approximately 51,000 port calls, off-loading 6 million loaded marine containers in U.S. ports. Current growth predictions indicate the container cargo will quadruple in the next 20 years.

2007-01-14 08:46:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

That's the best you got, Minivan?

sigh.........

2007-01-14 08:53:04 · update #1

8 answers

The trick is probably to do it intelligentally.

That means have a random componet and also a targeted componet looking for suspicious indicators.

It may turn out that 5% of containers being inspected is ENOUGH to secure your country.

To be honest for most types of attacks in the US, I think a smart terrorist would enter the country legally and have nothing on him of interest to the authorities. He'd then go about obtaining materials legally in small amounts to try and avoid suspicion. However if some one tried to do something like smuggle say a cruise missile in, youd hope the measurees in place would stop them

On the other side, authorities can look/flag purchases that are suspicious and make sure its hard to get them without valid id. They can also build up a hierachical list of people to watch and hepefully even get double agents

2007-01-14 09:02:01 · answer #1 · answered by rostov 5 · 1 0

That's commonly known as the 'price of success'. Because we haven't had any attacks since 9/11, people think they can let their guard down. And who knows? If there are no further attacks, and if containers aren't used against us, they may be right.
Basically, you're dealing with human nature here, and there is no right or wrong about it.

2007-01-14 08:56:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Who opposed that? Do you have a link? I do not feel good about that at all.

But it certainly does not help security efforts to deny that there is a true terrorist threat to the US.

2007-01-14 09:16:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 1 0

I say go with the 5 % as the best we can hope to afford...some is better than none...

2007-01-14 08:57:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Maybe this means you a little tiny bit bothered by terrorists, too.

2007-01-14 08:51:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

im not sure what you are getting at. what is your sorce or connection?

2007-01-14 08:53:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

what exactly is your point?

2007-01-14 08:59:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i feel that you are an idiot

2007-01-14 08:49:28 · answer #8 · answered by short minivan 1 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers