Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Great link, onetime2, I wouldn't mind discussing it in another thread.
Here's my quick beef about these two distinct threats (ICBMs fired at the US vs clear lack of serious port security):
1) ICBMs fired from outside the US are easily pinpointed to point of origin, and we already spend billions on our own response mechanism for this threat (our own ICBMs)
2) I don't know the stat offhand, but only a terrifying minority of cargo containers that come into the US are inspected with any degree of vigilance.
So in terms of priorities, I know which one should be higher instinctively- the one that we have no defense against.
If you want to discuss this more feel free to PM me or start a new thread.
|
Sparkhawk, sorry for not responding sooner, something with this thread is making me miss earlier posts. Like 2wolves' earlier post I completely missed reading this post from you until now.
Point 1, I'm absolutely in agreement on. But a response mechanism is not the same as a defense. The longer the MAD argument exists, the less likely I feel it will be effective. When people live under a certain threat for long enough they begin to disregard its implications or ramifications. At some point someone will find the response an "acceptable risk" to achieve their goals. Whether these are terrorists, a militant faction within an existing country, or whatever.
Point 2, I don't need any stat. Again I agree with you. The ports are ridiculously unprotected. Just as are many other areas. They should be a priority just like a missile defense. In all truth, I think the ports will be at least as complicated as a missile defense. Missile defense needs to deal with vast numbers of targets and port defense will need to deal with an even more vast number of targets.
I'll start a new thread about the New Zealand guy. Sometimes, I just assume that all the minutia rattling around in my head is known to everyone, that's why I often fail to post links when I first mention something.