Elections Disad – Core – Hoya-Spartan 2012


AT: TERRORISTS WON’T ATTACK LNG



Download 2.41 Mb.
Page35/56
Date19.10.2016
Size2.41 Mb.
#3941
1   ...   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   ...   56

AT: TERRORISTS WON’T ATTACK LNG




WRONG – TERRORISTS ARE ATTRACTED TO LNG’S EXPLOSIVE POTENTIAL.


KAPLAN 6. [Eben, research associate, editorial staff, “Liquefied Natural Gas: A Potential Terrorist Target?” Council on Foreign Relations -- Feb 27 -- http://www.cfr.org/publication/9810/liquefied_natural_gas.html]

Are LNG ships and terminals potential terrorist targets? Yes, because of LNG's explosive potential, experts say. Al-Qaeda, for example, has specifically cited LNG as a desirable target, says Rob Knake, senior associate at Good Harbor Consulting, LLC, a homeland-security private consulting firm. Pipelines are not as attractive because the flow of gas can quickly be cut off and an explosion easily contained. Terminals make better targets because an attack could result in a massive fire that could potentially kill scores of people. They are also good targets because "if you take out those terminals, you could have a significant disruption [in the U.S. gas supply,]" Knake says.

LNG shipments inherently dangerous— terrorism or accidents proves


Ewall 2006 (Mike Ewall of ActionPA, Liquid Natural Gas: A new evil – Feb 1st -- re-posted @ http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8I3iMn7-a7MJ:philadelphia.metblogs.com/archives/2006/02/liquid_natural_1.phtml+%22LNG+Tanker%22+%22accidents%22+%22inevitable%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

A May 2005 report for the Rhode Island Attorney General found that terrorist groups have the intent and ability to launch another attack on U.S. soil and that US oil and gas infrastructure is a desired target. LNG tankers and terminals are vulnerable to attack and cannot be cost-effectively secured. GAO, the investigatory arm of Congress, recommended in 1979 that the government prohibit any additional large-scale LNG facilities in or LNG tanker transit through urban areas. In Boston, flights are halted while an LNG ship moves through the harbor, as is traffic on the Tobin Bridge. Will flights be halted at Philadelphia area airports when shipments come in? Will I-95 and all of the bridges be closed? There will be major economic impacts to the region when the river traffic is shut down every 10 days for a 12 hour tanker trip up the Delaware. ACCIDENTS Terrorism isn't the only risk. LNG carries an inherent risk of accidents, as do all industrial facilities. LNG's properties make it uniquely dangerous if there were to be a spill or fire. According to a December 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratory, an accident or terrorist attack on a liquefied natural gas tanker could cause "major injuries and significant damage to structures" a third of a mile away and could cause second-degree burns on people more than a mile away. A "worst case scenario" could set structures aflame out to 2,067 feet and burn people as far as 6,949 feet away. The report's idea of "worst case" didn't include the actual worst case, failing to study larger ships that are planned and assuming that only some of the LNG tanker contents are released.



Terrorist groups have the plans needed to carry out attacks on LNG tankers


Daily Star 4. “Tanker terror: Gulf's oil routes under threat” http://jihadwatch.org/archives/2004_04.php

According to one Western counterterrorism official, Nashiri's interrogation after his arrest produced a lot of information on Al-Qaeda's operational planning for attacks on supertankers, "particularly their vulnerability to suicide attacks and the economic impact of such operations." He told The Daily Star: "They actually have a naval manual on this. It tells them the best places on the vessels to hit, how to employ limpet mines, fire rockets or rocket-propelled grenades from high-speed craft and turn liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers into floating bombs. They are also shown how to use fast craft packed with explosives and the use of trawlers, or ships like that, that can be turned into bombs and detonated beside bigger ships or in ports where there are often petroleum or gas storage areas that could go up as well. They even talk of using underwater scooters for suicide attacks." Last year the London-based International Maritime Bureau (IMB), which monitors security on the world's oceans, reported a suspiciously high number of tugboats were being hijacked in the Malacca Strait. The agency warned shipping authorities that these could be packed with explosives and rammed into tankers carrying gas or petroleum products, or into port facilities close to large cities. The burgeoning trade in LNG, much of which goes through the Straits of Malacca, heightens both the threat of such maritime terrorism and the devastation it could produce.

LNG IMPORTS BAD: TERRORISM




INCREASED LNG IMPORTS WILL HURT THE ABILITY OF THE COAST GUARD TO RESPOND TO TERRORIST THREATS


Lloyd’s List, 2008 (“Coast Guard lacks resources to ensure security of LNG vessels,” January 11, 2008, lexis)

THE US Coast Guard lacks the resources to meet its own security standards for tasks such as escorting ships carrying liquefied natural gas, the country's congressional auditors warn. And the report* by the Government Accountability Office concludes that the rapid expansion of LNG imports could result in this state of affairs persisting. The report, which examines the challenges raised by the possibility of terrorist action against tankers and gas carriers, says a successful attack would have substantial public safety, environmental, and economic consequences. There is no "specific credible" threat to tankers or terminals in US waters, the GAO says. However, it adds that "the threat of seaborne terrorist attacks on maritime energy tankers and infrastructure is likely to persist", with the greatest risks being at shipping chokepoints, such as the straits of Hormuz and Malacca, far from US shores, but which could damage the country's economic interests. Despite international agreements calling for protective measures, "substantial disparities" exist in overseas implementation. However, the report does not excuse the US's own performance. "Domestically, units of the Coast Guard, the lead federal agency for maritime security, report insufficient resources to meet its own self imposed security standards, such as escorting ships carrying LNG." The report highlights LNG because of the tremendous growth in imports: by 2015, crude oil imports are forecast to increase by nearly 4%, while those for LNG will grow more than 400%. Increased workload demands relating to LNG "could cause the Coast Guard to continue to be unable to meet the standards it has set for keeping US ports secure". The GAO recommends that the US Homeland Security Department directs the Coast Guard to "develop a national resource allocation plan that will balance the need to meet new LNG security responsibilities with other existing security responsibilities". It also recommends that the Coast Guard and the Federal Bureau of Investigation work together to "help ensure that a detailed operational plan has been developed that integrates the different spill and terrorism response sections of the National Response Plan". The report identifies three main types of threats ndash; suicide attacks such as explosive-laden boats, "standoff" attacks with weapons launched from a distance, and armed assaults. Of greatest concern, it says, is a suicide attack, such as the 2002 speedboat attack on the tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen. The Limburg attack killed one person, injured 17, and spilled 90,000 barrels of oil.

THE IMPACT TO TERRORISM IS EXTINCTION


SID-AHMED 4. [Mohamed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, “Extinction!” August 26-September 1, Issue no. 705, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.hml]

A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.



Download 2.41 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   ...   56




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page