Kevin Drum is all upset that a safe ports bill – HR4899 – was just put down by the GOP.
I’m huge on port security, and have been for years:
The power goes out, the telephones, cell phones, and computers don’t work. My backup AM/SW/SSB radio in the garage doesn’t work, and I step onto my driveway and look toward San Pedro and see a dark mushroom cloud.
We’ll skip over the fact that all the electronics in the area are kaput because of EMP, and hypothesize a working TV or radio, which informs me that it appears that a small…5KT…nuke has just exploded on a container ship in San Pedro harbor, along with another one in Red Hook, just across from Manhattan, and another one at the container yard in Seattle.
So I was kinda concerned when I read it as well.Then I looked at the bill itself.
Congressmen Jerry Nadler and Jim Oberstar have introduced the S.O.S. Act which would require 100 percent of the containers entering our ports, instead of the current 6 percent, to be screened long before they reach our shores. The bill mandates that:
* All containers be scanned using the best-available technology, including scanning for radiation and density, before they are loaded onto a ship destined for the United States;
* Scans be reviewed by American security personnel before the container is loaded; and
* Containers be sealed with a device that indicates tampering, and would notify U.S. officials of a breach before the container enters the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States.
Come on Kevin – you know that’s not a serious security proposal, it’s a trial balloon. You can’t implement this proposal without shutting down global trade.
I’ll suggest some reading from the Georgia Tech Transportation and Logistics Security Group as a way of getting your feet wet in this issue.
Meanwhile, My Congresswoman, Jane Harman (who I like better every week) is working on a competing measure – the SAFE Port Act (pdf).
Dig in a bit and see what you think.
I think this even tops the Clinton-Gore plan to make US airlines as secure as El Al. (This came after the Clinton plan to buy everybody a free college education, and before the Clinton plan to turn nuclear waste into Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup.)
The appropriate response to a 5KT nuke on a container ship in New York harbour would be a 25MT nuke in a Titan warhead 10,000 ft over Mecca. That low, because it would probably melt and possibly vapourise the Black Stone.
That big, because it would vapourise a few tens of thousands of Saracens and make their chief holy site uninhabitable for centuries.
It’s time to stop playing games.
But our aircraft must be even safer than El Al’s, because El Al doesn’t make passengers X-Ray their shoes and also allows Swiss Army knives on board.
Okay, Ian, I’ll bite. How, precisely, would destroying a site sacred to a billion Muslims remove whatever nuclear threat we faced? How would it pacify those who hate us anyway? Or deter those who are already to give their lives?
I believe that we would respond, undoubtedly in kind, but I would hope that we would respond in a more productive way than that. The people in Pygon-Yang, Islamabad, and Tehran would have a lot to worry about.
The demagoguery-before-policy idiots who killed the DPW deal should be blamed for the loss of a unique opportunity to improve US port security. One of the conditions of approval of the deal was that DPW provide screening and also permit US customs inspections of US-bound cargo at their port terminals around the world. All of the people who actually understand port security have said that tightening up at home doesn’t get the job done — security has to start before the cargo leaves its port of origin. It’s not really that hard to grasp this concept, but apparently it’s too difficult for members of Congress to understand. Or maybe it’s just too much to expect that the people elected to lead will actually do that, when it’s much easier just to follow the rest of the lemmings.
It has been generally disappointing to me to witness the formation of two distinct camps on the DPW furor:
1. Opposed to the sale, period.
2. Opposed to any questioning of the sale.
I’m in camp 1, by the way. It doesn’t matter one whit how many guarantees Dubai agrees to, the answer is no. That’s because the matter is dismissible out of hand – we don’t sell port control, port authority, port operations, port security, or any other port functions to foreign governments at a time when our concerns over domestic security are so extreme that we’re rolling back the bill of rights and conducting active military operations in the theater of the purchasing government.
Camp 2 proponents are metaphorically standing by the open door of the barn watching the horses gallup out. Do they suggest closing the doors? No, they seem to be saying that, “It’s a new world now, no more doors and no more horses, either.”
Yes, foreign companies and governments have interests in our port infrastructure right now, but that just means half the horses are out of the barn. We can still close the doors and see about maybe rounding up some of the escapees when we can. As for HR4899, I believe that Hong Kong manages 100% inspections, and the cost of full screening is estimated here at $20/container. It’s very doable and not difficult at all.
“Come on Kevin – you know that’s not a serious security proposal, it’s a trial balloon. You can’t implement this proposal without shutting down global trade.”
For Drum that’s not a bug, that’s a feature.
“As for HR4899, I believe that Hong Kong manages 100% inspections, and the cost of full screening is estimated here at $20/container. It’s very doable and not difficult at all. ”
Hehehe. Now thats just entertaining. Take my word for it, just slapping a sticker on each container would end up costing more than 20$ a peice. If you want to negotiate with the longshoremen for us and strike a deal, let me know how it turns out.
The major barriers to efficient container scanning at US ports are the Unions who insist on total control of every job on the docks. Just look at the shutdown of the west coast ports a few years back over the attempted move to scanning of port containers. Many port operations could be automated, but the Unions will never allow this to occur because it would mean a loss of high paying union jobs. The average salary at port of Long Beach was something close to 80k. Thats 80k for the guy who walks around the containers and marks them with chalk.
Scanning of 100% of the containers would nearly halt the flow of goods into the US because our ports run so poorly. Address the control of the ports by Unions, automate as much as you can and maybe then you could start to inspect at rates above 6%.
“The appropriate response to a 5KT nuke on a container ship in New York harbour would be a 25MT nuke in a Titan warhead 10,000 ft over Mecca. That low, because it would probably melt and possibly vapourise the Black Stone.”
A couple of points…
1) Mecca is rather poorly inhabited except by the political and religious caste that hates us and so is attractive as a symbolic target and as a means of hitting back without killing millions of children. But if the goal is to minimize casualities, I can’t see how enraging Moslems around the world in a deliberately provocative act is going to reduce the number of places we’d have to reduce to cinders.
2) I appreciate the irony here, in that one of the most significant reasons that Islam is a stone age /iron age religion is that it is wedded to locations and in the long run locations are transitory, however while it might make you feel better to point that out in a dramatic fashion it won’t do anything to actually solve our security issues and to be perfectly frank nukes are not toys to be used for your amusement.
3) It would almost certainly not be the case that Saudia Arabia provided the nuclear weapon, so you’d be attacking a less than proximally responcible target. And to the extent that Saudia Arabia and its government and inhabitants would be responcible, there are far better ways of hurting them and crippling thier capacity to hurt us ever again.
4) The thing about nukes is that you want to use them in a way which is so decisive that it immediately ends the conflict and terrifies the enemy to such a degree that you don’t find yourself having to use them again. The Mecca attack fails both those standards, in that it does nothing to end the conflict and almost certainly gaurantees that we’d have to use additional ones.
5) You are aware, I would hope, that there is no 25MT weapon in the current US arsenal, and I’m reasonably certain that no such weapon has ever been part of our standard nuclear arsenal (we’ve tested weapons in that range, but I’m pretty sure they’ve never been production weapons). A 25MT weapon is just overkill for any job that you’d want to get done except killing people, it creates more fallout of a larger area than you’d really want, and its not US policy to consider our nuclear arsenal primarily a tool for killing people. US nuclear weapons are ‘small’ accurate weapons to be used against military and industrial targets for the purpose of elimenating the enemies capacity to make war. The fact that they also will kill civilians is largely regretable. The standard weapon in the current US nuclear arsenal is a 300kt warhead. I’m not sure, but I don’t think we have anything in the stockpile of over 1MT. So really, your fantasy of killing people with a mighty rage is just that – a fantasy, and one that doesn’t do you credit. If the US uses nukes, it will be for military reasons and the decision will be accompanied by national mourning – and if the President is in any other frame of mind he should be removed from the office.
Nukes are not toys.
If we get nuked, the US will probably land 2-3 dozen 300kt nukes on various military and industrial targets in Iran within 2-3 days of the incident. Since the Iranians have deliberately put some of their nuclear processing capability in the middle of populated areas to discourage this sort of responce, there will inevitably be civilian casualties. No, that’s hardly even an interesting question. That’s a forgone conclusion.
The real question is what will the then President do if we uncover only the plot to explode a nuclear weapon.
What caught my eye was that the bill would require “best available technology” for scanning and sealing. Those familiar with environmental regulations recognize this as a technology-forcing standard. Today, the best technology is the widget 5,000(TM) and tomorrow it might be the widget 5,000a.(TM) If widget 5,000a(TM) is better, then its off to the landfill with all those old-fashioned clunkers.
Most environmental regulations address the cost/benefit concerns of continuous, albeit often incremental, technology changes by requiring new technology only at the time of capitol improvements. (If you build or modify a gizmo, use the best available widget at the time) I’ve read the bill “on Thomas”:http://thomas.loc.gov and there is no attempt to balance the need for the best technology with the cost of rapid (perhaps planned) obsolescence.
The bill is a serious piece of politics, but not serious legislation.
“The bill is a serious piece of politics, but not serious legislation.”
That goes for pretty much EVERY Republican-sponsored (and passed) piece of legislation over the last 5 years.
AL:
I disagree with the entire premise that “port security is too important for posturing”. Where are the Republican proposals to increase it? They’ve had 5 years now, and nada.
Even if this is “political”, it helps to raise public awareness of this important fact. And if that forces Republicans to finally do something, then we’ll all be better off for it. The fact that you present this in your typical manner of bashing Dems once again tips your hand.
If port security were truly important for you, you’d support legislation and politicians who are really trying to do something about it. Dems have been proposing legislation to beef this up FOR YEARS.
But instead we get to hear about your little nightmare of having a nuke go off in your back yard. What you’re apparently looking for is a politician to make your boogey men go away at night, when the thinking part of your brain is shut down. Well, don’t waste your time looking outside of dreamworld, where you seem to want this to play out.
“That goes for pretty much EVERY Republican-sponsored (and passed) piece of legislation over the last 5 years.”
*sigh* Yes, sadly, that is true.
The GOP has been a big disappointment. As my brother said, “Once in power, the GOP became the Democrats, and the Democrats became insane.”
The only reason that the GOP have retained (and even enlarged) thier power over the last 5 years is that the Democrats have produced even weaker candidates than the corrupt, incompotent, and cowardly ones the GOP was fielding.
The fact of the matter is that both parties have spent the past 5 years spending most of thier time politically posturing. I can fully agree with your assessment that the GOP Congress has been a disaster, but from my perspective the real problem has been that to the extent that it has been a disaster on substantive issues the Dems have and continue to run to the wrong side of every Republican position. If the GOP want to wastefully spend money, well then the Democrats promise that they’ll spend even more. If the GOP wants to fight a war while not taking it seriously, well the Democrats promise to take it even less seriously. If the GOP wants to do almost nothing about illegal immigration, well then the Democrats want to do even less. And so forth.
The thing that I can’t seem to get across to people is that just because I don’t support the Democrats, doesn’t mean I’m a supporter of the GOP or GWB. Just because I agree with them that many things are a mess, doesn’t mean I agree with them regarding the solutions. As I’ve said many times, if the Democrats were willing to run to the right of GWB on even a handful of issues, they’d control both houses of Congress and the Presidency now.
Simply not true. Every single container could be scanned at least for radiation without adding a single minute to the time required to unload the containers.
And it could be done in every container terminal in America for roughly 1 billion dollars total.
Details here
I think we should definately be working towards scanning all containers at the port of departure as well, but that’s a longer term project.
As to reasonable security bringing trade to a standstill I think that’s nonsense. We’ve survived “known shipper” requirements, port security program requirements, and dozens of other implementations since 9/11 just fine so far.
Trust me. The world is quite willing to hop through a few hoops to maintain access to the worlds largest consumer market.
I’d add that we should also be tightening up requirments for cargo booked aboard passenger aircraft. You’d be amazed whats riding in the baggage pits beneath your feet.
_Where are the Republican proposals to increase it? They’ve had 5 years now, and nada._
The Republicans passed the Maritime Transportation and Security Act of 2002. Its a 72 page pdf file “here”:http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/mp/pdf/MTSA.pdf
The whole purpose of the Democrat’s bill was to amend that Act to mandate that the scanning and sealing program required by that Act reach 100% levels using best available technology. You can either believe that’s a good idea or bad idea, but its not true that there is nothing has been done.
PD
You’ve got to admit that the Maritime Transportation and Security Act of 2002 is a pretty lame response to terrorism.
Basically applying only to LNG transport vessels and oil tankers. And requiring security programs at their ports as well as cruise ship terminals.
Additionally, it only applied to foreign flagged vessels.
What is interesting about the act in reference to the DPW contraversy is this.
Impact
All four LNG marine terminals in the Lower 48 States had approved security plans in place by July 2004. For example, tankers arriving at the Everett LNG terminal in the port of Boston must provide advance notice before entering the harbor so the Coast Guard can inspect the vessel to verify what the ship is carrying, who is aboard, and the country of origin. Coast Guard personnel stay aboard the vessel as it moves through the harbor to the terminal. Fire-fighting tugboats and Coast Guard and state police escorts must accompany all LNG tankers entering and exiting the Boston port. All other vessels must be at least 1,000 yards away from the tankers. While a tanker is at the terminal, Distrigas (the facility owner) provides on-site security and the Coast Guard continues to patrol the harbor.
source
So much for terminal operaters not being involved in security eh?
“Simply not true. Every single container could be scanned at least for radiation without adding a single minute to the time required to unload the containers.
And it could be done in every container terminal in America for roughly 1 billion dollars total.”
Both those paragraphs are flatly absurd.
The “link”:http://www-irps.ucsd.edu/IPS/Container%20Security%20Preventing%20a%20Nuclear%20Catastrophe provided suggests inserting in _every cargo container_ a device (which doesnt exist yet) that will
1.Have intrusion detection capabilities to protect the integretity of the container.
2.Detect radiation
3.broadcast GPS data which is then to be centrally gathered and analyzed for terrorism implications
It is suggested then such a device would cost less than $200 each. That is flatly insane. A GPS transmitter capable of being received thousands of miles away would cost thousands by itself. An accuarate radiation detector would cost thousands and an inaccurate one would create tens of millions of false positives (remember the sheer scale we are talking about here). There are literally _millions_ of containers to account for. Who is going to monitor and coordinate all this data coming from these 200$ detectors? How much will that cost?
This whole article is joke. It smacks of some intellectual who has never spent a day in the real world. 1 billion dollars? You couldnt _paint_ every international container for 1 billion dollars.
Davebo: The radiation scanner you linked to appears to still be at the prototype stage. If this is developing technology, then it would appear that money for research and development would be in order, not the Democrat’s bill. The link also says that the Bush administration has budgeted $237 this year for that kind of R&D. Is it enough?
Millions of containers entering each week, each one a pretty big and heavy object. The sheer scale of the problem is such that there is no real practical solution.
Or rather, the solution could be implemented through market forces: increased automation of container movement in order to render the whole process faster and more efficient; that would automatically require better container tracking through electronic devices that can also perform surveillance.
PD,
I don’t think it’s enough. Not even close. But that’s just my opinion.
There are crane mounted radiation scanners available now such as this one which honestly I thought that article was referencing. Horrors of lazy Google searches I’m afraid.
“increased automation of container movement in order to render the whole process faster and more efficient; that would automatically require better container tracking through electronic devices that can also perform surveillance.”
That is the correct solution, but we’re back to the union problem. There is no way to deal with every container via the current system and no way to change the current system without major overhaul of union contracts that nobody is willing to contemplate. Of course you _could_ get the unions to do this but it would take forever and cost a fortune. A large fortune. Enough to make putting R2-D2 in every container like that article suggested look almost reasonable.
“Enough to make putting R2-D2 in every container like that article suggested look almost reasonable.”
Indeed.
As well, putting “R2-D2” into every commercial container would only give you a false sense of security. For the foreseeable future, there will be no way of assuring the ‘friendliness’ of any electronic device, and so thier is no way of assuring that a near-future R2-D2 will be a dependable gaurdian. An electronic device (and its software) is easy to subvert, decieve, or replace, resulting in a container which reports that it is safe and that all is well, but which is in fact working for the enemy. An good electronic device raises the technical hurdle required to smuggle things, but not that much if what we are protecting against is already something as technically sophisticated as producing a nuclear weapon.
Simply put, just as in the computer industry, thier is no adequate level of security nor will there ever be. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to secure your system, but any determined attacker will get through and lame attempts to close every possible hole will be so economicly costly as to render the threat of an attack itself a successful attack.
To answer various people’s replies to my comment:
Well, maybe there aren’t any multi-megaton weapons left in the arsenal. But my admittedly old information is that there are a few old Titan missiles lying around, and that they were armed with single large 10+MT weapons. They are largely useless for counterforce, because of their inaccuracy.
The idea would be largely a symbolic strike, and an unmistakable message that the civilised countries of the world had had enough of Islamofascism and it’s missile-rattling. The clear implication would be that if they didn’t disarm Tehran (and Islamabad, Riyadh, Kuala Lumpur…) would be next.
Saudi Arabia has been bankrolling terrorism for far too long. It would make the point rather well that the West has had enough.
No, nukes are not toys. It might serve to remind some of the nuttier mediaevialists of that fact.
An idea for discussion: This is not original with me, but it has been suggested that a global (maybe once a decade?) ritual be set up. Detonate a high megaton-range fusion weapon in a safe-ish spot (middle of an ocean, maybe?) after inviting all the world’s leaders to come and watch, from a safe distance of course. Purpose? To remind said leaders of what lies in wait if they make enough, and bad enough, mistakes.
If anyone refused to come, the rest of the world would know what to think.
I’m not so worried about a nuke (in my view nearly impossible for current terrorist operations to acquire), we have scanners in place to check for that. I’m more worried about chemical/bio or other agents which are not so easy to immediately detect but far easier for terrorists to acquire.
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4691
These things are already in place, supposedly all outbound trucks must run through these scanners before debarking the port. Still, this type of scanning is occurring when the cargo is already at the port, and getting ready to leave. And this is just simple radiological scanning.
My larger complaint is that our ports are woefully unprotected from the types of attacks that terrorists can currently carry out. Proper container inspections and tracking are a myth at this point in time.
But lets be honest here, while a segment of the security population harps on port security, they remain largely silent on border security which is wide open. OTM (other than mexican) apprehensions continue to rise each year, yet Bushco wants to pass an amnesty program and continue catch and release operations for all border crossers.
As a person who has spent many a night on the quay watching ships load (though not container ships) I have a hard to defending longhshoreman’s unions. But I think you guys are demagoging them a bit here.
For instance, port automation and the west coast strike of two years ago. It’s true that the unions fought to save jobs that were to be lost through automation. But keep in mind that in the end they automation was done per the operators original plans. In the end, the union did not block the automation.
Regardless, the technology is available today. I honestly don’t see the ILWA trying to block implementation of crane mounted scanners which to me the best solution to the problem.
I would add further, the costs involved with tracking containers via RFID run roughly 140 bucks per container. SaviTrack offers this kind of your service right now with its “Savi Tag ST-676 ISO Container Security Tag”.
More info here:
Still this speaks nothing of the real threats available to Terrorists currently. Tracking containers doesn’t help if someone has swapped the contents at the port or at an alternate location once its left.
I think that the biggest nuke in the US arsenal is a 9 MT bomb (not missile warhead). But this point is quite academic.
No, I don’t think that destroying Mecca would shock & awe Islamists into compliance.
A container nuke doesn’t really need to disembark: detonate it while the ship is still in the harbor, and it’s going to be a very bad day on the shore all the same. I’ve also heard recently that RFID systems can be infected by viruses.
A complex situation, by any angle.
Davebo, the problem is that crane mounted sensors are very easily defeated; what’s needed is neutron scanners which are still spendy, large and slow.
A.L.
Dave —
Destroying Mecca, and the Kabaa, provides visible and unavoidable proof that Allah does not exist. Because he was unable to prevent the destruction of his holy place. It invites existential despair into Muslims and leads them to abandon their faith, their way of life, and thus, their reason for terrorism in the first place (Destroy the West before it destroys their culture).
Since the primary cause of terrorism is the Muslim desire to preserve the traditional society, by destroying modernity before it can leach away their traditional societies. Urbanization, openness, literacy, modernity destroy Muslim society. A noted Muslim terrorist and thinker, Suha Taji-Farouki (indicted in the Sam al-Arian trial as a terrorist) noted: “Rather than being a development within cultural traditions that is internally generated, 20th century Islamic thought is constitutively responsive; it is substantially a reaction to extrinsic challenges.”
“In the Middle East of 1900, for example, less than 10% of the inhabitants were city dwellers; by 1980, 47% were urban. In 1800, Cairo had a population of 250,000, rising to 600,000 by the beginning of the 20th century. The unprecedented influx of immigrants from rural areas brought the population of Cairo to almost 8 million by 1980. Massive urbanization altered patterns of living, of housing and architecture, of the human relation with space and land, of marketing, employment, and consumption, and the very structure of family and social hierarchy. ”
Link “here”:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH23Aa01.html
Nuking Mecca proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the the Supreme Sovereign Allah does not in fact exist because he was unable to prevent Islam’s holiest place from vanishing and the place itself from being a radioactive wasteland for many years. Moreover in one sense, we are not in a Westphalian war of states but war of civilizations. Nuking Mecca would have the same civilizational effect of the Sack of Rome by the Visigoths. It would be effective. Extremely ugly and I would hope we never do it. But it would work.
I would argue however we should do everything we possibly can to avoid that possibility. Stopping trade is not one of them, but yes our current port situation is shameful. We are not spending enough money (slowing the importation of finished low-cost manufactured goods will increase labor of same here in the US) on technology and inspections (and we can and should get as close to 100%) but that alone will only make things more difficult. I also think Harman’s bill is the better call. We should also IMHO as a matter of national policy require port security be done by 100% US owned companies. Even if it costs substantially more.
But it has to be coupled with better border security; if drug cartels can move in massive amounts of drugs, terrorists can move nukes in. The risk IMHO is not a port going up in a nuke explosion but Times Square and the DC Mall (including White House and Congress and all the monuments). Muslims want to destroy the modern world (that’s us) before we destroy them by turning them into moderns.
I also agree with Celebrim’s assessment of Dems vs. Reps. Pathetic and illustrative of how debilitating the lack of a serious competitor for votes on National Security has become.
It would be nice if the same analysis that’s applied to Islam here
was also used for other religions.
Does the destruction of the Temple and the Holy of Holies provide visible and unavoidable proof that Yahweh does not exist? Judaism is also a location-based religion, and the suggestion that this is inferior to a location-independent religion like Christianity is just chauvinism, not objective analysis.
For that matter, doesn’t the fact Jesus was executed by the Romans provide unavoidable proof that he wasn’t an immortal deity? Oh, you mean some religions are allowed to incorporate new beliefs like the resurrection but others aren’t.
Assuming that there is still human life on Earth after we nuke Mecca (a big assumption), there will still be people who call themselves Muslims. What their religion looks like, I can’t guess and don’t really care.
“Destroying Mecca, and the Kabaa, provides visible and unavoidable proof that Allah does not exist.”
For once I agree with Andrew. This flies in the face of everything we know about human nature and religion. You are making a logical argument about a fundamental matter of faith. Again, if Armageddon was nuked and sank into the sea would Christians suddenly renounce their face? Um, nope. And if Mecca was nuked there would be 50 versus found in the Quoran within hours predicting it.
Guys, there is no “symbolic” use for nuclear weapons. My point is to do everything in my power to make sure that win without having to use them…
A.L.
I agree with Mark and Andrew that Jim’s analysis is severely flawed, but if I may speak as a person of faith, I think that there assessment also somewhat misses the mark in describing the feelings involved.
The truth is that Jim is half right. Disentigration and irradiation of Mecca and the Kabaa would almost certainly cause Moslems everywhere “existential despair”, and would cause some of them to question thier faith. But it would not lead to the sort of responce in general that he looks for, and it would fail to do this precisely for the same reason that terrorism fails as a tactic. Humans subjected to fear do not in general become more easy to control – they become less so. And in any event, strong belief systems – religious ones especially – act as very powerful bulwarks against “existential despair”.
I would not expect an outbreak of “existential despair” to cause widespread abandoning of religion and traditional ways of life. If anything, it would likely cause the contrary. And I certainly disagree that Moslems would after a symbolic defeat suddenly find they had no reason to be at war with the West, or that the primary cause of terrorism is the “desire to preserve the traditional society.” Certainly that plays a role, but not everyone that desires to preserve their traditional society in the face of encrouching modernity ends up as terrorists. Some of them end up, for example, as Quakers and Mennonites. I think that such an explanation is overly simple to the point of facileness.
One of the things that Jim misses is that one of the underlying causes of terrorism is what I call ‘the failure of the second miracle’, in that Islamic faith is predicated on two ‘miracles’. The first is the ‘miracle’ of the Koran – a document which supposedly would be impossible for any man, much less an uneducated man like Mohammed, to produce on his own. This is why Moslems revere the Koran in a fashion that differs markedly from how Christians view the bible. The second miracle was the miracle of ‘success’, in that Islam’s most powerful argument for being divinely inspired was for the first few centuries of its existance its apparantly supernatural success in defeating its enemies and spreading its beliefs and influence. Mohammed guaranteed victory for his followers and this prediction was born out for the first few centuries to an amazing degree.
So to the extent that anything is ever going to cause Islam an existential crisis of faith, the faltering of Islam in Europe and latter the failure to defend itself from Europe as European empires reconquered lands from Islam at various points would be it. Modern terrorism is one attempt to deal with the failure of the second miracle. Movements to internally purge Islam, of which Wahabbism is only the latest in a long line, is another.
However, I disagree with Andrew that you can usefully predict the behavior of one religious group – or for that matter of anyone with strongly held convictions – based on the behavior of some other religious group in a similar circumstance except perhaps in the most general of ways. Believers believe demonstratably different things and to the extent that you think religion shapes any behavior at all, you have to agree that these differences in beliefs create differences in modes of behavior. Take Andrew’s example of the destruction of the Temple. Judaism dealt with this issue twice in its history, and quite arguably the second time that they dealt with it Judaism ceased to exist within about 50 years. The Rabbianical and Levitical Judiac traditions don’t just differ in superficial practice. Temple Judaism differs from the Synagogue Judaism in its fundamental approach to salvation. For Temple Judaism the fundamental act of worship is the act of sacrifice. It’s the sacrifice that is redeeming, and without the sacrifice its impossible to bridge the gap to God. Temple Judaism died the second because of the failure to reestablish the sacrifice convenent within the lifetime of anyone who could remember it. It did become impossible to sustain a belief in Temple Judaism. For Synagogue Judaism the fundamental act of worship is the reading of the Torah. That remained, but quite frankly (and I’m sure that a Jew would say I have no right to judge) I can’t understand how it is possible to practice Judaism and believe because to do so requires you to ignore huge stretches of your own sacred text with no theological basis or excuse for doing so that I can see.
“Judaism is also a location-based religion, and the suggestion that this is inferior to a location-independent religion like Christianity is just chauvinism, not objective analysis.”
I think you misunderstand my analysis. I’m merely saying that a religion which isn’t grounded in a specific place doesn’t risk the sort of existential crisis of faith that came with say, the destruction of Jeruselem. Nor does it have so much to deal with changing technology or populations. Consider the crisis which is the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. A religion which assumes time and place and technology as fundamental to its practice has challenges adapting which a religion which doesn’t does not.
“For that matter, doesn’t the fact Jesus was executed by the Romans provide unavoidable proof that he wasn’t an immortal deity?”
Bad analogy. Had Mohammed been executed, we’d almost certainly not heard of him. Had Jesus promised secular military victory to his followers, they almost certainly would have percieved his execution as unavoidable proof that he wasn’t an immortal deity. Whatever you believe Jesus told his followers before his death, it apparantly reassured his followers about the event sufficiently that they didn’t give up on him.
“Oh, you mean some religions are allowed to incorporate new beliefs like the resurrection but others aren’t.”
First, I would like to point out that ‘ressurection’ wasn’t a new belief in Judiasm. And secondly, YES, some religions ARE allowed to incorporate new beliefs but others aren’t. You can’t put religions in a box and say, “These are all alike.” Moreover, Christianity was only incorporatable into Judaism because it availed itself of certain prophetic works and ambiguities. Islam is not incorporatable into either Judaism or Christianity because it doesn’t, and so finds itself forced to insist that the Jewish texts are flawed and corrupted accounts – something that Christianity doesn’t insist on. Had Christianity not been able to avail itself certain passages in the Jewish text, it would almost certainly be an unsustainable belief system today and Christians would probably not adhered to it long at any point but remained Jewish instead.
Celebrim, you are quite right that Rabbinic Judaism’s claim to continuity with the Temple Cult isn’t (contrary to popular belief and the rabbis’ own PR) based in consistency of practice. My point is that the group we now call Muslims would, barring the complete extinction of humanity, deal with the destruction of Mecca in a similar way to Hebrews/Jews and destruction of the temple: probably right down to the claim that post-nuke Islam is really a continuation of pre-nuke Islam.
The premise that union labor would make the cost of screening too expensive or poorly handled should not even enter into the equation. Screening must happen prior to even getting into port. The last place we should find radioactive contents is in San Pedro, all ready to be detonated at a moments notice.
There must be some offshore terminal where screening would happen, out of the reach of longshoremen’s control, and out far enough to keep the mainland safe from blast effects at a minimum. Automation should be maximized.
AJL,
Of course they would claim continuity. The question is, would they also exhibit in practice the same devotion to jihad, taqqiya, the ummah for themselves and dhimmitude for the kafiir, and so forth? Make of it what you will, but the Jewish experience says no.
#35
Nice thing, that one. But do you realize that it would change the concept of port as it’s been known in the last 4000 years?
How much would it cost to build this sort of terminals? How to protect them for storms? Ports are built into bays and have quays for a reason.
FabioC said:
A container nuke doesn’t really need to disembark: detonate it while the ship is still in the harbor, and it’s going to be a very bad day on the shore all the same. I’ve also heard recently that RFID systems can be infected by viruses.
Yup. Which is one reason why port security measures that start at the destination port are too little too late. See comment #5 above.
“The premise that union labor would make the cost of screening too expensive or poorly handled should not even enter into the equation. Screening must happen prior to even getting into port. The last place we should find radioactive contents is in San Pedro, all ready to be detonated at a moments notice.”
You are correct, but a major factor has been ignored: everything we insist on our trading partners to do before shipping to us they will insist on in reciprocity. If we insist on China searching and securing every container you can bet they will insist on the same thing sending them back- even if they are empty. So we go back to the cost of our labor.
do you understand how stupid this make every person of every country of the world look?
seriously
Mark, somehow I don’t think that our trade negotiators would readily cave in to a demand that we inspect empty containers on a return trip. Perhaps they might give ground if those containers were full of US made goods on their way to Chinese (to use your example) markets. I think most people in the US could live with that.