New port threat –
nuke on oil tanker

Editor's note: The following story is excerpted from a new report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND. Annual subscriptions to G2 Bulletin have been reduced to $99 a year and include a free copy of Farah's latest book, "Taking America Back." Monthly subscriptions are also available for just $9.95.

WASHINGTON – With controversy still swirling over America's possible port deal with a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, a major oil power with terror connections, new concerns are being raised among defense and security analysts about the threat of a nuclear weapons being delivered to the U.S. aboard an oil tanker, G2 Bulletin reports.

While the possibility of such a sneak attack has been considered before, new alarms were set off last week when the Saudi Arabian branch of al-Qaida issued a fatwa providing religious justification for its attempt to car-bomb the huge oil-processing plant in Abqaiq.

"Targeting of oil interests is legitimate economic jihad," said the 63-page document posted on an Islamist website. "Oil is the basis of modern industry and the backbone of industries in infidel countries."

The fatwa serves as a reminder of a specific warning given to the U.S. Congress last year that an oil tanker could be used to transport a nuclear weapon to a port in the U.S.

"The Middle East is the dominant source of anti-American terrorism," explained the report by Jonathan Medalia, specialist in national defense, foreign affairs, defense and trade. "The United States imports an average of more than 2 million barrels of crude oil a day from Persian Gulf nations. "This crude oil is transported by ship, and it would be very difficult to detect a bomb inside a supertanker."

The report very specifically is referring to a nuclear bomb.

Such a device could not be readily detected by gamma rays because of the size of supertankers and the thickness of their steel. Neither could neutron activation detect such a weapon with any certainty because neutrons would be absorbed by the oil, explained the report, titled "Nuclear Terrorism: A Brief Review of Threats and Responses."

Not only would this be an ingenious means of getting a nuclear warhead to the U.S., says the report, but the effects of detonation of the weapon would be magnified by the location.

"A bomb in a tanker could devastate an oil port by the blast and by secondary fires in nearby refineries and oil storage tanks," it explains. "A tanker bomb might be used against other maritime targets, such as the Panama Canal. And, if a bomb in a shipping container could lead to the shutdown of container traffic, seriously damaging the world economy, a tanker bomb might by the same token lead to the suspension of crude oil shipments, with similar results."

The report raises the distinct possibility that such an attack would – in addition to its killing power and destructiveness upon the primary target – result in "a halt of crude oil shipments worldwide for some time."

One of the responses suggested for dealing with such a threat is the construction of offshore inspection ports, much like those proposed by Robert Pfriender of Alliance Development Corp.

Pfriender's company put together a comprehensive plan for Customs and Border Protection to develop three offshore cargo container security inspection ports to inspect each and every container prior to it being cleared for entry to the U.S. mainland. The ports would be located 25 miles offshore to mitigate the effects of a detonation and so any fallout (which is minimal over water) would not pass over land.

"We offered to develop these ports with private financing and at no cost to the government," he said. "The operation of the ports would generate revenue from a small inspection fee for each container. The fully automated robotic process would add only a slight delay to the container delivery time."

Not only did Pfriender ensure the proposal was seen by Customs officials as far back as August 2002, less than a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, he also took the time to see that virtually every member of Congress received this proposal – along with officials in the White House, the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security.

The U.S. government has expressed little interest in the plan.

Get the full story and all the latest news on the ports controversy and the security concerns surrounding it at Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin now.

Previous stories:

Why port security is life and death for U.S.

When the nuke comes to port