IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Politics Forum / Couple of things
Post #247,260
by bepatient
Picture of bepatient
3/8/06 5:55:49 PM
Reply
New Couple of things
One...you don't just pull up to a containership in midocean...these things are tracked pretty religiously by lots of relevent authorities.

Even so, container seal inspection is much simpler than full scan and tamper tags and other such electronics are being developed and deployed by the industries involved. By end of this year, we will have 100% capability of nuke screening internally. Thats just building a sensor grid at the offload dock.

Companies that have huge infrastructure requiring container transit (WalMart, Home Depot) already have security on the ground in SE Asia that verify contents and seals of all their cargo pre-shipment.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Post #247,271
by Another Scott
3/8/06 7:36:26 PM
Reply
New Does anyone really think it's going to happen that way? 18kB
It's gotten a lot of press, and a lot of people are worried about it, but I don't expect any WMD shipment or any attack to be mounted from a standard shipping container that's been compromised. Rather, I expect that it'll be something low-key, if it ever happens. Like a fishing boat, or a pleasure craft. The Coast Guard can't search everything that comes near the US coast. They certainly don't stop all the drugs that reach the US that way. What's to stop someone from FedEx-ing or using the USPS to mail a WMD to the US? (Yes, FedEx does have security, and packages are inspected. But it's not 100% secure either.)


Obviously, we need ways to inspect cargo, and suspect cargo should be checked before it reaches a US port facility. But I don't expect a problem to happen via that route. If we dump billions into securing the ports and don't pay attention to less secure routes, we'll be setting ourselves up for a fall. :-(

For example, I'd be more worried about an attack on a petroleum tank farm in Newark than security at the Newark ports, myself.

[image|http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/photosearch/Previews/PLX006932.jpg|0|Newark Tank Farm|261|400]

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
     Dubai Ports World deal may be killed in the US House - (Another Scott) - (25) - March 7, 2006, 07:17:46 PM EST
         Great. Pass more stupid laws - (bepatient) - (24) - March 8, 2006, 10:01:09 AM EST
             I'm confused... - (jb4) - (23) - March 8, 2006, 02:19:57 PM EST
                 Its not the rider portion - (bepatient) - (22) - March 8, 2006, 03:25:22 PM EST
                     Problem with that solution... - (Yendor) - (2) - March 8, 2006, 03:41:09 PM EST
                         Couple of things - (bepatient) - (1) - March 8, 2006, 05:55:49 PM EST
                             Does anyone really think it's going to happen that way? 18kB - (Another Scott) - March 8, 2006, 07:36:26 PM EST
                     Re: "one was British and one was UAE...and the UAE won." - (a6l6e6x) - March 8, 2006, 04:11:21 PM EST
                     Fain enough... - (jb4) - (17) - March 8, 2006, 04:28:31 PM EST
                         I didn't say that... - (Yendor) - (2) - March 8, 2006, 04:30:57 PM EST
                             Ooops! - (jb4) - (1) - March 8, 2006, 04:36:06 PM EST
                                 IcLRPD (new thread) - (lincoln) - March 8, 2006, 05:44:32 PM EST
                         Minor nit but you are correct. It was a purchase. - (bepatient) - (13) - March 8, 2006, 05:44:20 PM EST
                             terms of the purchase are suspect - (boxley) - (12) - March 8, 2006, 05:50:55 PM EST
                                 I heard on the radio that - (lincoln) - (11) - March 8, 2006, 05:55:15 PM EST
                                     What about the Israel boycott issue? - (Silverlock) - (10) - March 8, 2006, 09:50:32 PM EST
                                         ssh, - (boxley) - (9) - March 8, 2006, 09:52:06 PM EST
                                             So they break the law in interest of profit? - (Silverlock) - (8) - March 8, 2006, 10:03:41 PM EST
                                                 What law is that? - (bepatient) - (5) - March 9, 2006, 08:44:45 AM EST
                                                     There you go again. - (Silverlock) - (4) - March 9, 2006, 09:20:31 AM EST
                                                         Oops. sorry. Let me help - (bepatient) - (3) - March 9, 2006, 10:05:50 AM EST
                                                             Minor nit - (Silverlock) - (2) - March 9, 2006, 10:24:39 AM EST
                                                                 No argument there - (bepatient) - (1) - March 9, 2006, 10:48:16 AM EST
                                                                     Well duh! - (broomberg) - March 9, 2006, 10:50:31 AM EST
                                                 Absolutely not. - (admin) - (1) - March 9, 2006, 09:40:29 AM EST
                                                     The dreaded plot.... - (bepatient) - March 9, 2006, 10:06:59 AM EST

I should have blown up.
48 ms