It was early, I had to much Sam Adams last night and you pissed me off. I know the difference between a master and everything else, but having any type of license doesn't mean you know jack crap about what the coast guard does. If you repelled on container ships or searched drug vessels you might have a point but you don't.

So the press gets a picture of a CG boat and tried to make its mission meaningless, how about trying to get the Coast Guard response.

You were the one who implied that I knew nothing about the Coast Guard because of my supposed "six pack" license.

After being around boats and people on the sea for 25 years, I have a fairly good idea of what the Coast Guard does. They perform many worthwhile tasks including harrowing rescues of errant sailors. My comments minimize none of these worthy endeavors.

The topic of the thread, if I might point it out to you, is specifically with regard to "speedy boats providing extra muscle for state ferry system".
My comments regarding the Coast Guard were based upon this specific endeavor.

You have chosen to make my statements a blanket attack on the Coast Guard, and all persons in uniform.

I'm not sure that the Sam Adams has completely worn off.

The boat used to bomb the USS Cole a dingy, do you think the fast CG boat could stop that....you bet.


Now who are the dumb sob's with the machine guns in hand. You say that your against the policy but your words clearly state that you think the guys that do the work are dumb sob's.

I would say who I would like to be there if the terrorist do succeed but I won't.

Sure they could. But, what are the odds that the terrorists would pick the vessel that they are currently guarding?


Well, maybe I spoke a bit too abruptly, myself.

I'm quite disturbed by the grand expense of time and money, basically for naught, and my words are clearly misdirected.


Go ahead. You can wish me dead if you want. I'll probably take it personally.

If the terrorist are in a boat laden with explosives and its the day that they planned the attack they will likey attempt to attack with the CG boat there. Keep in mind these are ****** whack jobs. Now if they do call off an attack because the boat is there it does buy us a little more time to hopefully interrupt the plan and when it comes to anti terrorist planning buying time is pretty much #1.

Or we can handle the SOB's like the brits do hunt them down and kill em with a special paramilitary force. i do think it was you that said terrorism should be fought covertly which I agree with but when they do slip through the net you need overt actions to stop what could be a bigger plan and hopefully buy time. Anti terrorism is an in exact science because of the dynamic motivations and targets of a terrorist.

And minutes matter when it comes to stopping an attack.

All true.

And, if the boats would continue to be used for the next five years, and this could be justified based upon the threat, I might agree with it.

But, this use of the boats, and the use of the police in the NYC subways, is simply the result of some idiot who thinks we now have a higher threat level due to the London incident. As if, overnight, the threat is now increased due to a bombing that happened 4,000 miles away. Why did the threat not exist prior to the London bombing?

What is going to be the situation in three months? The threat level will be reduced, no terrorist will have been intercepted, everybody will think the threat is over, the boats will disappear, the police in the subways will disappear, and life will go back to "normal".

This is when the terrorist will strike. I'm not sure if you realize this but they are not as dumb as you make them out to be.

Well the threat level is stupid and its intended for stupid people they need that green feeling of vigilance before they go to a NASCAR event. The problem is we know 2 basic things about terrorist 1. they like to be noticed and time bombings to make a bigger media impact and 2. we don't know jack squat about what they are going to do and all we can do is attempt to decrease the risk until they are all dead. Ok so the patrol boats are moved from one place to another for patrol, they would be patrolling anyway the planes would be flying so the cost isn't as great as it may seem.

Even though you see the guys boating in the picture there are many guardsman checking ships and enforcing maritime laws which they can do while riding with that ferry right?

Terrorist aren't dumb their whacko, remember Osama laughing about the 9-11 hijackers that didn't know it was a suicide mission?

Exactly.


They don't need to "time" the bombings to make a bigger media impact. They create a big media impact, no matter when they decide to pull off a stunt.

We don't know what they are going to do and when they are going to do it, however, we do know that they are crafty and patient. Therefore, they are highly unlikely to attempt to hijack and airplane and are highly unlikely to attempt to put a plot in motion when there is a high threat level and the government is at it's highest alert.

The boats that we are referring to are shadowing specific boats all the time, AFAIK. This diverts the resources of the Coast Guard to a specific place to guard a specific boat. There is no logic to this approach. I can show you 20 ferries in the NYC area with no such protection.

I can also show you a nuclear power plant in the NYC area that can be taken over by about six well trained and heavily armed men. This can be done with ease. If one of them understood how to operate a nuclear plant (no easy task, I'm sure), the potential for catastrophe is about 1000X greater than a subway bomb.

You see any government security at these facilities? I didn't thing so.

There was an article awhile ago about a private team comprised of SEALS, SF and Rangers testing NuKe plant security and they broke it every time and placed a mock bomb then escaped undetected. The problem I have with Nuke security is that the power companies should be footing the bill they are reaping the profits from it so why do we have to pay for the security? (if thats a BHD rant please slap me). yes it does bother me but I can't do a thing about it.

Perhaps there was specific information to that ferry, we'll never know just like its unlikely that we'll know how many plans have been foiled by the Gov.

Security Already "Privatized"

David Orrik, a former US Navy Seal, until recently ran a program that tested the security at civilian nuclear plants by organizing mock attacks against them. His exercises don't sound terribly ambitious--they pit a small team, moving on foot, against a nuclear plant security force that would be warned six months in advance of the test. Even so, half of all plants tested failed--and in at least one case, Orrik's men were able to simulate enough sabotage to cause a core melt. And remember, these tests did not simulate, say, the Osama bin Laden truck bombs so successful in demolishing US embassies in Africa in 1998.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011001&c=2&s=bivens_wtc_20010916

Nope hes still in cruising the high seas pickin up the chics, these guys would love him he graduated from CU-Boulder thats one of their schools.

He circumnavigated the globe on a CG cutter.

I read that article and it clearly shows the limitations of the security at a nuclear plant. Of course, you would be correct in stating that it is the responsibility of the plant operator to provide the security. However, if you go down this path, why is it not the responsibility of the ferry boat line to provide the security for the boat and why is it not the responsibility of the airline to provide the security for the plane?

In the case of the subways, which are operated by the municipality, the use of government agencies to provide the security would clearly be appropriate, but, you can't sit there and argue that a nuclear plant should have their own private security when the airlines and the ferry boats do not.

If you bothered to read the entire thread, you would see that I qualified the statement.

The USS Cole does not provide any answer to the question "What are the odds", and you know it.

Was the Coast Guard shadowing that ferry to protect the important cargo?

Why not? Seems to be necessary in Seattle, why not Williamsburgh?