Robert Pfriender, president of Allied International Development says it doesn't matter much who gets the contract to operate the ports and says we are missing the point: security begins offshore. And he is a man with a lot of experience and expertise in this area.
He states that if a WMD were to reach one of our ports, it's much too late. His company estimates that 2 million people or more would be killed if a 12-kiloton nuke were detonated at the Brooklyn Redhook Terminal. And this is a small nuke by today's standard, but similar in size to the one used on Japan.
It is entirely plausible, according to him, and would have catastrophic effects on our freedom, and our economy, along with the human tragedies.
He and his company (Allied International Development) devised a plan in which they would build/develop three offshore cargo container security inspection ports to inspect each and every container prior to it being cleared for entry to the U.S. mainland. In order to lessen the devastating effects of a detonation and the resultant radioactive fallout, these ports would be located 25 miles offshore.
Doesn't this make sense? It makes sense to me. Not only does this make sense, but they offered to do it with private financing - and at no cost to the government. The ports would generate revenue by charging a small inspection fee, he says, and would be fully automated using robotics, causing only a slight delay in delivery time.
The results of this offer? Well, officials at Customs saw it as far back as August 2002. Also, nearly all, if not all, members of Congress received the proposal. Who else has seen it? The White House, the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security.
And it has gone nowhere. Only Customs has responed via a letter. It seems they are fully committed to rely on the Container Security Initiative (CSI).
"Pfriender says Customs chooses to rely on the Container Security Initiative, which is a virtual (as opposed to a reliable physical) "inspection" of containers. In reality, less than 4 percent of containers are targeted for this "inspection" which is really only a screening, with less than 1 percent of the 4 percent of containers which are screened being actually inspected.
Further, these "inspections" are carried out by foreigners at foreign ports and Customs can only rely upon the honesty of the foreign inspectors. Worse, there are only a few dozen ports enrolled in this program out of thousands of ports worldwide. None of these ports are located in countries which are the most serious threats to U.S. national security.
Even the GAO has issued a report that essentially describes the CSI program as being worthless. Many more informed experts have concluded it is a complete farce. It offers something worse than poor security, namely a false sense of security which leaves us even more vulnerable to attack.”
In a nutshell, the biggest threat we face is from terrorists, or rogue nations, who could easily deliver one or more nuclear, biological or chemical weapons into the U.S., and no matter who runs the ports, if a nuclear weapon arrives, it is already too late to avoid the consequences of millions dying and the nation facing economic ruin and instability.
Understanding the costs we sufferred because of 9-11, some experts estimate an economic loss of $1 trillion from a nuclear attack involving cargo containers.
A single incident would result in the crippling of the international trade and shipping industries and could cause serious worldwide shortages of materials, supplies, resources, food, medicines and many other essential items shipped by container. One could only imagine the dire consequences if several weapons were delivered simultaneously. American society, as we know it, could easily be at tremendous, irreparable risk.”
Only about 2 % of our inbound containers are inspected
and that is after the containers are in America's ports near major population centers.
These offshore ports would also mean approximately 2 million new jobs. The ports would be leased on a long term basis to the U.S. government, and remember this would be accomplished with private financing and no government spending.
What's not to like about this plan?
Is this another example of our politicians being asleep at the wheel?
It might cost us dearly.
This information based on a report in the G2 Bulletin.
