Article

2005-10-13 Terror Networks & Islam

Rooters Skeer Story: US wants search powers 2000NM from coastline

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2005-10-13 05:09|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 This should be easy. If they want to send ships to our ports, they agree. If not, tough.

I am glad the realization that the biggest threat we face is a nuke in a container. It is good to see action backing that up.

Posted by Shater Glelet1563 2005-10-13 07:30|| 2005-10-13 07:30|| Front Page Top

#2 The realization has been there all along. What has taken time has been to design, build and prepare to deploy those "sensors on oil rigs and weather buoys" - among other places. It's useless - and incendiary - to start pressing the other countries to allow searches before we are ready to id the ships we think are sufficiently threatening to demand this sort of action far out at sea.

As the article notes, we are asking for a major change in the law of the sea. That's the sort of thing for which you get your ducks lined up first ....

One other thing: just because we don't see public action on a security threat doesn't mean the threat isn't taken seriously.

I'm not saying ALL potential security risks are automatically covered despite no obvious action .... no doubt there are some that just are lower priority or have to be postponed due to limited people, funds, technology. I am saying, however, that a lot of work is going into a lot of things to address the most pressing threats. Witness the casual mention of bio-sniffers on the Mall during the anti-war protest a few weeks ago - how many of Americans even knew we had both developed these in a major R&D thrust and then deployed them in some key places???

Lots of people are working very hard on these issues.

Posted by lotp 2005-10-13 08:30|| 2005-10-13 08:30|| Front Page Top

#3 Just use the old 'boarding to suppress the commerce of slaving' excuse. Seemed to have been more than a couple of ships that grounded carrying lots of illegals, who are all too often exploited in defacto slaving conditions.

Posted by Spavimp Angase7679 2005-10-13 09:44|| 2005-10-13 09:44|| Front Page Top

#4 I like it Spavimp.

Posted by Shipman 2005-10-13 10:19|| 2005-10-13 10:19|| Front Page Top

#5 This is far too great a distance for a container nuke--my guess is a tramp converted into a missile platform. Remember that the Norks are fond of moving missiles by sea, and it wouldn't take a huge tech leap to mount a launcher in the hold.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-10-13 10:28|| 2005-10-13 10:28|| Front Page Top

#6 I think they mean 200 NM. Wouldn't 2000 NM put, say, the Thames estuary in their search area?

Posted by mojo">mojo 2005-10-13 10:38|| 2005-10-13 10:38|| Front Page Top

#7 Wouldn't 2000 NM put, say, the Thames estuary in their search area?

Unless the other major ocean is the one under concern.

Posted by Pappy 2005-10-13 11:22|| 2005-10-13 11:22|| Front Page Top

23:38 Bomb-a-rama
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:27 Shilet Chogum1381
23:21 Alaska Paul
23:17 Mizzou Mafia
23:12 trailing wife
23:09 Ptah
23:07 trailing wife
23:00 Red Dog
22:45 Rafael
22:44 trailing wife
22:38 Frank G
22:35 Frank G
22:33 Alaska Paul
22:32 Paul Moloney
22:28 bbbustard
22:24 Barbara Skolaut
22:19 steve
22:15 doc
22:15 Phil Fraering
22:10 doc
22:10 gromky
21:51 Red Dog
21:51 Bobby