Are we intentionally not talking about something obvious?

I had been assuming that someone else would bring it up, but it has been over a month and I am not seeing it.



Aren't these deep sea platforms soft targets for terrorist attacks and could potentially have devastating effect?



I hate sounding like a fear monger but when you compare some idiot with a home made bomb in a car in Times Square with a professionally made bomb on a boat that is shipped across the Atlantic I am far more worried about the boat bomb than I am the car bomb. Even small aircraft flown "9-11 style" into these oil rigs could be a problem.


If drug runners can get their cargo to shore I would think terrorists could get their cargo to a platform. I would hate to think what 3 or 4 of these things being destroyed on the same day might do to The Gulf.

..as they did in this case.

Katrina destroyed over 100 platforms. Of course, they had a some warning...but I would imagine a terrorist blowing up a drill rig wouldn't necessarily result in an uncontrolled gusher at the sea floor.

The recent failure of a BOP notwithstanding.

Serious? this is what you worry about?

control of a cargo ship or other large vessel. An oil platform wouldn't be a great target, but a carefully chosen canal lock, bridge, or port facility could cause a lot of disruption if destroyed by an exploding, sinking ship. I also suspect that the people who are supposed to worry about these things have had the idea as well...

this is one of the lowest risk areas ever.

Those platforms have higher security than nearly all of the US military bases.

We should attack NOW while the mood is ripe.

There were at least some email forwards to that effect riccocheting around.

We must destroy it in order to save it.

over a largely-imaginary threat. Fancy that.

Security has increased immensely around various forms of infrastructure. An AQ rubber raft would be detectable for quite some time before it got to a target area on the open sea. Then, they'd have to be able to accurately detonate something that needs to work a mile down.

So far, their bomb-deploying abilities have been pretty much lacking of late.

to asymmetrical destruction shouldn't have been built in the first place. And, if already in place, should be deactivated and sealed up permanently.

Should we also get rid of all other industrial centers, oil tanks, tall buildings, large ferries, passenger aircraft, airports, buses, hospitals, laboratories, power plants, railways, bridges, mines, and so on?

and (2) have a destruction potential capable of significantly altering the history of mankind shouldn't be created in the first place.

No one facility mentioned in your list would rise to the same level of destruction as the blowout of a large oil well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Yes, any of those on your list could be damaged by terrorist and no, we obviously can't get rid of everything that could be blown up. Just don't drill any more deep wells in the Gulf. They are not, as the Republicans like to claim, going to make any significant dent in America's oil needs. Why take the risks?

given the catastrophe that is already in progress.

Like asking someone dying of cancer "hey, aren't you worried about the saccharin in that soda? I hear it can cause cancer."