Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Counterterrorism -- Port Security Vulnerabilities
Protecting U.S. seaports is a daunting challenge because the American coastline includes more than 1,000 harbor channels, spanning 25,000 miles of inland and coastal waterways that serve 361 ports comprising more than 3,700 passenger and cargo terminals (Maxwell & Blanda, 2005). Those ports handle more than 2 billion tons of freight, 3 billion tons of oil, over 134 million ferry passengers, and as many as 7 million civilians traveling on cruise ships (Maxwell & Blanda, 2005).
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. officials have installed high-tech monitoring devices at major ports designed primarily to identify radiological signatures of nuclear materials capable of being used in fission weapons and radiological weapons or so-called "dirty bombs" (Larsen, 2007; Maxwell & Blanda, 2005). However, American ports remain tremendously vulnerable to terrorism by virtue of this excessive reliance on technology rather than human intelligence capable of identifying potential threats and interdicting terrorist weapons long before they ever arrive in U.S. territorial waters (Larsen, 2007). Even high-tech inspection of incoming cargo containers is an unrealistic methodology for preventing attacks on U.S. ports because of the sheer volume of cargo containers that make physical inspection of any substantial percentage of them impossible (Allison, 2004; Larsen, 2007).
Even more fundamentally, the increasing prospect of terrorists coming into possession of nuclear weapons (in particular) means that catastrophic attacks could be carried out long before cargo ships arrive at shore-based inspection stations (Allison, 2004; Larsen, 2007). Ultimately, the volume of shipping involved and the impracticalities of a weapons detection-based methodology demand that U.S. port security efforts emphasize intelligence and the prevention of the acquisition of WMDs at their source rather than their interdiction at U.S. shores (Larsen, 2007).
References
Allison G. (2004). Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe. New York: Henry Holt
Larsen R. (2007). Our Own Worst Enemy: Asking the Right Questions About Security to Protect You, Your Family, and America. New York: Grand Central Publishing.
Maxwell C. And Blanda T. "Terror by sea: the unique challenges of port security."
The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (September, 2005). Retrieved February 22,
2010 from bnet.com at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_9_74/ai_n15966347/?tag=content;col1
Port Security "Describe the framework for Managing and Leading a Security Force." Management is a "process of working with and through individuals and groups and other resources to accomplish organizational goals." ( Christopher, 2009 P. 180). The central challenges within the port security management is the ability to effectively manage changing worker's demand, government and legal requirement as well as managing the issue of workforce diversity. Thus, port security must develop a
Port Security Collaborations between port security and enforcement operations Port security is the defense, law as well as treaty enforcement to counter terrorism activities that are within a port or even a maritime domain. This is inclusive of seaports protection, the inspection and protection of cargo that are moving through ports as well as maritime security. Enforcement operations on the other hand enforce immigrations laws within a nation in a manner that
Port Security The CBP (Customs and Border Protection) is a unit in the homeland security department and is the agency responsible for regulating, monitoring and facilitating flow of products at the points of entry. CBP policy formulation is done is such a way as to ensure that there is smooth movement of cargo through the border line. CBP enforces the customs and trade rules which are put in place with a
Thirdly, it will be a challenge in ensuring that there is coordination and cooperation from all the stakeholders. Hecter explains that achieving the much-needed cooperation is not easy as anticipated by many. There are many conflicts of interests deterring from working towards a common objective. There is no port in the United States that is similar to another in all regards. However, most of them have similarities that make them
Assessment, however, has proven far easier than implementation. A large part of the problem in implementing security measures has been the conflicts and simple lack of organization that exist between the many different interests and operators involved in any given port. In the near-decade since the passage of the Homeland Security Act, port control for many ports has become more standardized both federally and internationally (Beisecker 2006). Perhaps this is
International Ship and Port Security (Isps) Code on Maritime Security Impact of the International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code on Maritime Security The study will be based on the question that "What is the impact of the International Ship and Port Security (ISPS) Code on Maritime Security." Answers will be sought to have this question addressed adequately. The study feels that the ISPS Code has some impacts upon the Maritime Security