Unanswered Questions

A large passenger aircraft carries thousands of gallons of aviation fuel. It was the explosion of the fuel, and the horrendous fires that followed, that caused most of the immediate damage and, eventually, the destruction of the World Trade Center complex in New York City on 11 September 200l.

More than 3,000 innocent noncombatants were killed in the three terrorist attacks--including the one that ripped a large chunk out of the Pentagon--on that new date that will live in infamy. The long-term cost, in dollars, of those attacks is incalculable, but has been estimated, to date, to be more than three quarters of a trillion dollars, "and counting." That almost unimaginable total will continue to climb as the war against international terrorism continues, year after year, for perhaps decades to come.

Question: How much greater damage might have been done if the weapons of mass destruction used by the terrorists had been not aircraft, but ships--carrying not thousands of gallons, but thousands of tons, of fuel (or some other explosive substance)?

A partial answer to that question was tragically provided in April 1947 when two modestly sized cargo ships loaded with nitrate fertilizer exploded on consecutive days in Galveston Bay, Texas, killing almost 600 people, injuring 800 more, and causing damage estimated at $50 million. Three decades earlier, more than 1,600 people were killed and one tenth of the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, was destroyed when a French steamer carrying 3,000 tons of TNT exploded following a collision with a Belgian ship.

All of the ships involved in those incidents were relatively small by today's standards. And the explosions were accidents--not planned by terrorists and carefully calculated to cause the maximum loss of life, and the greatest economic damage, in one of America's major port cities--New York or New Orleans, for example. Or Chicago, Seattle, Boston, Oakland/San Francisco, or Houston.

What is the likelihood of such an attack? Or, as on 11 September 2001, several simultaneous attacks hundreds of miles apart? Again, there is a partial answer: not as likely as on any date prior to 11 September. But still far too possible. Thanks to the continuing state of alert ordered by President Bush for all of the nation's armed services, and the additional funding provided by Congress, the nation is now slightly safer from terrorism than it was eleven months ago. Very slightly.

Understandably, the highest priority of the American people--and of their elected representatives in Congress--during those eleven months has been to improve airline security. And several constructive steps have been taken to do just that. But for many years, starting well prior to 9/11, the most vulnerable component, by far, of this nation's homeland-defense infrastructure has been, and is today, the porous U.S. ports and waterways system.

The United States Coast Guard, the principal focus of this issue of Sea Power, is the lead federal agency in enforcing U.S. maritime laws and maintaining maritime security. Despite decades of neglect by both the executive and legislative branches of government--compounded and complicated by perennial underfunding, a shortage of personnel, and a surplus of duties and responsibilities--this gallant multimission service has been doing an almost superhuman job. Consider the following: In addition to its numerous other missions, the Coast Guard has more than 25,000 miles of coastline to patrol and keep safe, and 350 ports; more than 7,500 foreign-flag ships--many of them carrying hazardous materials and/or from countries identified by the U.S. State Department as "having terrorist links"--enter American waters each year; a large but undetermined number of those ships are manned by Third World nationals; in all, an estimated 200,000 or so foreign seafarers (some documented but others not) visit U.S. port cities each year--many of them then disappear into the general population.

This is not a daunting challenge, as the cliché goes. It is a true Mission Impossible. No agency of government, even the Coast Guard, could guarantee the 100 percent safety and security of all U.S. ports and harbors, 25,000 miles of coastline, and the nation's inland waterways--all at the same time.

The men and women of today's Coast Guard will do their utmost, though--there is no question about that. But there are several questions that should and must be asked--and can be answered only by the American people and their elected leaders in Congress and the White House: In this Age of Terrorism, what additional cataclysms might occur that would put the entire nation on a higher, and continuing, state of alert? Did we learn the hard lessons we should have from the terrorist attacks of 9/11? If so, do we now have the courage, and the national will, needed to prevent additional attacks--some of them, perhaps, "from the sea"? In short, do we as a nation now finally understand what several previous generations of Americans also had to learn the hard way--namely, that eternal vigilance is the true price of peace?

The answers to those questions might well determine not only the future of the United States itself, but also the prospects for a truly lasting peace that will benefit all of mankind.

Timothy O. Fanning, National President