The Nuclear Paradox

Leaving aside what one alleges to be logical, i consider it likely that humanity can and will survive this conundrum. Having nuclear weapons does not threaten the entire planet unless the nation in question also possesses a delivery system of global reach. Nations acquiring this technology threaten only their immediate regions. They do not become global threats unless and until one can conceive the delivery of the device by individuals travelling by ordinary commerical means, or the nation in question also acquires the technological sophsitcation to produce ICBMs.

A regime run by madmen can pack a bomb onto a freighter and blow up New York. Sad but true.

As a delivery system, a freighter is only as effective as the target nation's security measures are lax.

For a freighter to enter New York harbor, it has to pass the bar at Sandy Hook. To accomplish that, it has to take pilot on board. At that point, the ship's master has to produce registry papers and a bill or bills of lading. If a freighter attempted to pass the bar at Sandy Hook without taking on a pilot, red flags would pop up everywhere. The United States Coast Guard would immediately intervene. A freighter attempting to pass the bar at Sandy Hook without a pilot runs a substantial risk of grounding, apart from having at that point already alerted authorities that it is behaving in an illegal manner. It would be far more likely to detonate at Elizabeth, New Jersey, which is functionally the commercial port for New York. It would be far more likley to detonate at Long Beach rather than Los Angeles.

To even make it as far as the entry to either of those ports, it could not be registered in the nation of origin. The United States is unlikely to ignore a freighter of Persian or North Korean registry entering territorial waters. Were the supposed attackers to employ a ship of another registry, such as Panama (small nations have set up a cottage industry of registering ships without all of those inconvenient and expensive requirements for health and life safety regulations), then it would be necessary at some point for them to smuggle a nuclear device out of their nation, to lade it elsewhere. A ship entering a Persian or North Korean port is likely going to be noticed and monitored. Even a small nuclear device is going to be too large to carry out into international waters in a small boat to be laded while afloat. The Persian Gulf is heavily patrolled by the United States Navy. The North Koreans are carefully monitored by United States forces in Japan and South Korea.

A far more likely scenario would be the use of a "dirty bomb"--i.e., a small amount of radioactive material in a suitcase or briefcase size package with explosives. To use that in the heart of Manhattan, the suicide bomber has to get through customs with the suitcase. That is more likely than an actual nuclear device being smuggled in, but still improbable. The nation wishing to attack us with a nuclear device will need to be very sophisticated indeed to be able to create a device sufficiently small to be smuggled out of their nation, and laded on a freighter without attracting undue attention.

The issue is not whether or not such a delivery system is possible, but whether it is probable. Getting a freighter into New York harbor with a nuclear device aboard is improbable, although not necessarily impossible.

Let us all hope you are right. A freighter with all papers in good order will enter and only a few of its containers will be screened after it has docked.
'
I hope that you are right and the ship is stopped before it is too close to the harbour.

......................
CRS Report for Congress.
.
Terrorists might try to smuggle a bomb into a U.S. port in many ways, such as in a tanker or a drybulk freighter, but sea containersmayprovidethemaparticularlyattractive
route. A container is "[a] truck trailer body that can be detached from the chassis for loading into a vessel, a rail car or stacked in a container depot."
.
Much of the world's cargo moves by container.
.
The (then) U.S. Customs Service processed 5.7 million
containers entering the United States by ship in 2001.
.
It screens data for all these containers, but inspects "only about 2 percent of the total volume of trade entering the country each year."
.
Containers could easily hold a nuclear weapon.

Setanta wrote-



That's where we came in. Why all the padding in the middle?

I guess they all said something similar about Pearl Harbour.

No, in fact "they" did not say that about Pearl Harbor. In March, 1941, the Martin-Bellinger report on aircraft availability clearly laid out the probable results of a carrier-launched attack on the naval station on Oahu at Pearl Harbor. Martin and Bellinger were opposite numbers in the Navy and the Army (at that time, there was no separate Air Force--the air forces were a part of the United States Army Air Force, and under the command of Lt. General Short), each responsible to their respective commanders for air operations. The report made clear that neither the Naval air forces nor the USAAF forces were then prepared to deal with a large carrier strike. I don't have the source in front of me, but i believe the report posited an attack from three large carriers. The First Air Fleet, under the command of Admiral Nagumo, contained the six largest carriers available to the Imperial Navy.

The "packing" in the middle arises from my respect for other members. I don't assume that people consider me an oracular source, and therefore explained why the scenario is not impossible, but can be considered improbable.

Pearl Harbor? We can compare to Pearl Harbor when a country like Iran gets at least one aircraft carrier.

Of course, if they do that then we are at the point they pretty much have global reach.

For the record, although i don't intend to hijack the thread, comparisons to Pearl Habor are not apposite. Revisionist reviews of the Pearl Harbor debacle appeared before the war was even ended--the first was a pamphlet in 1944. The fact of the matter is, the Japanese pulled off one of the most brilliant naval operations in history. That stings American pride--to this days Americans would prefer to believe in elaborate conspiracy theories that to admit the simple facts--the Japanese pulled off an heroic effort in the face of daunting odds, and did everything right. The Americans did just about everything wrong. Not only was an attack on Pearl possible, it was highly probable, and Kimmel and Short failed miserably to respond effectively to the threat.

Setanta-

I must congratulate you on your last two posts. I agree that they are helpful to some threaders.

But the main point is the impossibilty of removing the threat entirely if the motive exists from an area having the economic resources to mount it by whatever method.

Removing the motive seems the only certain way. Much recent news seems to me to increase the strength of the motive.

People in charge of security should only discuss 'worst case scenarios' and prepare for them.
.
If they don't. they should be sacked and replaced. 9/11 was preventable.
.
A ship with a hidden bomb is difficult to stop. These religious fanatics don;t mind dying, which raises the danger level considerably.

Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, will today in the Commons present MPs with his new commission's report on how to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. Among his recommendations is a commitment by states to remove all their nuclear weapons from foreign soil. The US has more than 100 nuclear weapons at its Lakenheath base in Suffolk, an arms control group says. A Greenpeace poll found 60% of Britons did not know or did not believe it.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/