Call Us : (908) 233-7503 (US) Email : [email protected]
The NY Times today had a very comprehensive article about the anatomy of a port and the related challenges in securing the vast critical infrastructure.
New York Times – Sunday February 26, 2006
By HASSAN M. FATTAH and ERIC LIPTONTo some American officials, the sprawling port along the Persian Gulf here, where steel shipping containers are stacked row after row as far as the eye can see, is a model for the post-9/11 world.
Fences enclose the port’s perimeter, which is patrolled by guards. Gamma-ray scanners peek inside containers to make sure they carry the clothing, aluminum, timber and other goods listed on shipping records. Radiation detectors search for any hidden nuclear material.
But those antiterrorism measures still fall far short of what is needed to ensure security, American government auditors and maritime experts say.
The scanning devices, for example, can check only a small fraction of the millions of containers that flow through here every year. The radiation detectors most likely would not pick up a key radioactive ingredient in a nuclear bomb, even if it was just modestly shielded. And the system that selects containers for inspection relies upon often-incomplete data.
In short, even at this model port, the security regimen set up in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, largely at the request of the United States government, is far from enough to address the vulnerabilities that make ports still such an attractive terrorist target.
It explains why so many port experts consider as misplaced the furor that erupted this week over whether Dubai Ports World, the government-owned company that operates this port, should be allowed to take over management of terminals in six American cities.
The trouble is not focused at the end of the line — the port terminal at the American shore. It is spread up and down the supply chain at critical points across the globe, no matter what the United States government and partners like United Arab Emirates have so far tried.
Security experts say the far more profound issue is the wide distance between what is needed for effective monitoring in terms of technology and programs versus what is on the ground.
Related posts: