Monday, April 28, 2008
Aqua-Terrorists?
I recently read an article on coastal safety from terrorist attacks. Presidential officials believe that the next possible attack could come by water and want to regulate the boats that stream the United States coast. The 18 million small boats in the country will participate in a type of neighborhood watch. Also, new devices are hoped to be created to enhance servailance and detection of dangerous materials in the water. Billions of dollars have already been spent on regulating large cargo ships that terrorists could use and (mostly east) coast states have been ready with diving teams and such in cases a warning should come about. They're also talking about making boaters have certificates of ownership and registration or licenses...Should this be such a drawn out, debated ordeal?? Or should be just drop it all together or making some sort of quick decision on regulation of the shores?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that it is a wast of time an money to attempt to secure the border. The US border is too large to actually be safe from all attacks, therefore, any attempt to secure it would just be a waste of resources.
There isn't really one populated area that terrorists could attack through the water, but it is possible since they've already used many other ways of attacking us and we've secured those areas so that they can't try a repeat. I guess it's good to be cautious, but we don't want to waste a ton of money on something that may or may not happen.
I think this is smart. Terrorists will get smarter and so must our defenses. The seas are a hard thing to secure because they are so vast and ownership is so precarious. The idea of regulating boats is a good idea but it is quite a task. it will be absolutely abnoxious implement but I think it will do alot of good. Security of the seas does not only help fight terrorism but will help all aspects of the country that deal with the seas. All the plans they are making, like the dive teams, it seems a little dramatic but it is always better safe than sorry.
I think that we should be trying to keep our country safe, and if a water attack is a valid threat then we should attempt to protect our nation. However, the coast is a very large area and it would be unrealistic to hope that we could secure it entirely. The waste of money and resources to protect something that vast would outweigh the benefit of protecting from a possible attack.
It's obviously a huge nuisance to try and regulate the entire USA coastline. So much for from sea to shining sea. We should be protecting our country from terrorists and take limited non-invasive measures. Then again I suppose it all goes back to giving up freedoms for security, and how much freedom we're willing to sacrifice.
I suppose a terrorist attack on Hawaii wouldnt be such a far fetched idea if we look back to Pearl Harbor, but are we going to monitor every inch of coastline to make sure aqua-terrorists don't attack?
Post a Comment