A Common Defense Issue: Is Defending Our Ports Cost Effective?
It seems the Congress and Bush have taken action to defend our security at least at the busiest ports. This might cut down some high profile targets but it still leave large holes in our Port defense since the obvious thing for anyone to do who wants to smuggle Weapons of Mass Destruction in the United States is to use less busy ports. The radiation detectors may stop the smuggling of nuclear weapons into the United States but they will not stop one being detonated in a port. Such a detonation may kill less people than actually letting it off in a highly populated area but it could hurt us economically which seems to be at least one goal of Al Qaeda. The best defense is if we could have a means to screen ships even before they get within short to medium missile range of the United States.
My question with this and any other security measure is whether or not the cost is worth the advantage. I have my doubts.
I see radiation detectors were installed in Hong Kong. I have my questions about how much this protects us as Hong Kong is really not an area I perceive a terrorist threat coming from. I also question if we could trust the operators of the detectors in countries that are more to have terrorist operating from them. In addition from what I have heard we gave China the plans for the detectors in exchange for them putting them up. That action itself sounds like a breach in security.
This all is of course my political opinion and it did not win the day on the floors of Congress. I have some interest because this is how my tax dollars are spent but I concede the defeat to those whose ideas received the majority support of both houses. I would not seek to pull a undemocratic procedure technically as Senator Durban of Illinois did when his idea about the parental notification act was overridden. The act was stopped even though the majority of Congress passed it.
I see the Bush Administration spent $10 billion dollars to inefficiently secure our ports but is unwilling to spend $2-4 billion dollars to build a wall in order to secure our borders. He does not see the contradiction.
Source 1 is article about President Bush signing Port Act.
My question with this and any other security measure is whether or not the cost is worth the advantage. I have my doubts.
I see radiation detectors were installed in Hong Kong. I have my questions about how much this protects us as Hong Kong is really not an area I perceive a terrorist threat coming from. I also question if we could trust the operators of the detectors in countries that are more to have terrorist operating from them. In addition from what I have heard we gave China the plans for the detectors in exchange for them putting them up. That action itself sounds like a breach in security.
This all is of course my political opinion and it did not win the day on the floors of Congress. I have some interest because this is how my tax dollars are spent but I concede the defeat to those whose ideas received the majority support of both houses. I would not seek to pull a undemocratic procedure technically as Senator Durban of Illinois did when his idea about the parental notification act was overridden. The act was stopped even though the majority of Congress passed it.
I see the Bush Administration spent $10 billion dollars to inefficiently secure our ports but is unwilling to spend $2-4 billion dollars to build a wall in order to secure our borders. He does not see the contradiction.
Source 1 is article about President Bush signing Port Act.
posted by Kerwin | 5:18 PM
1 Comments:
Yeah, Bush is playing games with the border. If he's willing to guard the ports he should be willing to guard the borders. Period.
Post a Comment
<< Home