Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: be true for individuals and for corporations throughout the country. Ownership would come to an end; of assets possessed the re would no longer be a record. Capitalism as it is known would be finished. This, to repeat, would be the result of one small nuclear weapon. 16 | P a g e Port Security Affirmative BDL Answers to: Low Risk of Terror Attack [___] [___] Impact of a terror attack means the risk cannot be dismissed Virginia Pilot, 2012 (February 5, They look harmless enough. And, so far, they have been – just the same old shipping containers we’ve seen rumbling along our highways for decades. The one rattling by in the lane next to you could be loaded with anything from fruit to furniture. Mark Laria dwells on the tiny cha nce that it carries the next 9/11. Laria is port director at the Norfolk field office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In the 10 years he’s been here, roughly 10 million containers have come and gone. None has been the dreaded “boom box” – the one security experts warn could be rigged with a terrorist bomb. Even so, Laria said, the stakes are too high to blow off the risk: “I don’t know if I’d be able to recover if some event happened – some 9/11 – and it was tracked back to a container that came through Hampton Roads.” 17 | P a g e Port Security Affirmative BDL Answers to: Terrorists Can’t Get Material [___] [___] This attack will be nuclear-secret documents prove terrorists have the necessary material Graham Allison, Prof @ Harvard, 2010 (Foreign Policy, A Failure to Imagine the Worst, 25 January,,0 ) The U.S. national security establishment's principal failure prior to Sept. 11, 2001, was, the commission found, a "failure of imagination." Summarized in a single sentence, the question now is: Are we at risk of an equivalent failure to imagine a nuclear 9/11? After the recent attempted terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, this question is more urgent than ever. The thought that terrorists could successfully explode a nuclear bomb in an American city killing hundreds of thousands of people seems incomprehensible. This essential incredulity is rooted in three deeply ingrained presumptions. First, no one could seriously intend to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single attack. Second, only states are capable of mass destruction; nonstate actors would be unable to build or use nuclear weapons. Third, terrorists would not be able to deliver a nuclear bomb to an American city. In a nutshell, these presumptions lead to the conclusion: inconceivable. Why then does Obama call nuclear terrorism "the single most important national security threat that we face" and "a threat that rises above all others in urgency?" Why the unanimity among those who have shouldered responsibility for U.S. national security in recent years that this is a grave and present danger? In form...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/06/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online