Cruising for Trouble

24 Nov. Washington Times - Cruising for Trouble.

Quote:

---

An unmarked, blacked-out, rusting hulk of a freighter slowly cruises off the East Coast. Outside U.S. territorial waters, standard cargo containers are prepositioned on deck with their doors ajar. Hidden inside are Scud ballistic missiles that can be fired within minutes.

No defense exists today to protect Americans against launches of this type involving short-range ballistic or cruise-missile attacks aimed at targets within a few hundred miles of the U.S. coast.

Armed with biological, chemical and nuclear or radiological warheads, these cheap and easily acquired weapons could cause massive death and destruction. Seventy-five percent of the population, 80 percent of U.S. economic wealth and 75 percent of domestic military bases fall within 200 miles of the vulnerable U.S. coastline...

---

SWED, did you notice that the article was written by a vice president and managing director of missile defense at Lockheed Martin?

While I don't discount that this potential threat exists, I strongly disagree with a multi-million dollar program solution for a missile defense system that in the end will still be susceptible to human error along several nodes of the system. Four minutes isn't much time to react, and it is unrealistic to assume we can protect all of the nation from this type of attack. Sometimes I wish I was in Congress, so I could fight these mad projects that steal money from where DoD really needs it.

We can't afford to let the beltway bandits spin a story to generate fear to support another DoD big money project. We already know we have real demands for that money in the rank and file of our military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

SWED, did you notice that the article was written by a vice president and managing director of missile defense at Lockheed Martin?

---

Go figure....:cool: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

While I don't discount that this potential threat exists, I strongly disagree with a multi-million dollar program solution for a missile defense system...

---

The article demonstrates that the corporate marketing campaign for more and more expenditure on ABM development and procurement is simply jumping on the terrorism bandwagon to supplement their already powerful lobbying efforts on the Hill.

I agree with Bill, in that this type of maritime terror threat is way down the potential threat list. As far as a threat coming from the sea, the shipping container system has a more simple appeal to the bad guys - its already been effectively exploited by smugglers of guns, drugs and humans. The security community has been studying and developing methods of tightening up the sieve, but there is still a tremendous amount of potential for nasty exploitation of the system.

Evaluating the Security of the Global Containerized Supply Chain

The National Strategy for Maritime Security - Sep 05

...but if you liked the story of the ships with improvised SCUD launchers, this one is even better: Potential for Terrorist Nuclear Attack Using Oil Tankers

29 Nov. New York Times Op-Ed - Think Inside the Box.

Quote:

---

...the president's proposals won't protect Americans from our gravest cross-border threat: the possibility that a ship, truck or train will one day import a 40-foot cargo container in which terrorists have hidden a dirty bomb or nuclear weapon.

---