It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korea fires four missiles

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




but any containers offloaded would be screened, yes.


Kind of a little bit late then is it not .




posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TDawg61
Ongoing provocation by NK insanity.


I wouldn't call self defense against murderous hypocrisy insanity.

The US has been starving North Koreans to death literally with economic sanctions for engaging in trade with terrorist states and yet the US armed the Mujahadeen, illegal combatants to kill Russian soldiers in Afghanistan who were invited to fight against the Mujahadeen by the moderate Islamic Afghan government.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Not until they're in port, and then it's a tiny fraction of containers.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I would assume that any ship that had stopped in NK would be looked over pretty well .



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Yeah. Chances are it wouldn't be allowed in port, or would be stopped before it got anywhere near the US because of that stop.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Miracula2

What has North Korea been doing for well over half a century? Terror attacks on South Korea. Kidnapping of Japanese citizens, sinking a damned naval vessel...

You've looked at only one side of the issue. What did North Korea do to earn those sanctions? What started the whole deal?

Oh, right, a little thing called the Korean War. Started by Kim Jung Il with his invasion, with Sov. support, and later China's of South Korea.

Please don't attempt to portray them as innocents at sea being swarmed by evil sharks. It doesn't work.
edit on 3/8/2017 by seagull because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Miracula2

originally posted by: TDawg61
Ongoing provocation by NK insanity.


I wouldn't call self defense against murderous hypocrisy insanity.

The US has been starving North Koreans to death literally with economic sanctions for engaging in trade with terrorist states and yet the US armed the Mujahadeen, illegal combatants to kill Russian soldiers in Afghanistan who were invited to fight against the Mujahadeen by the moderate Islamic Afghan government.




Everytime sanctions are eased/lifted, or foreign aid is provided, the spending goes directly to the military, NOT the people of NK. Stop trying to glorify NK like they are some kind of victim. They are not. Simply put, everything wrong with NK right now is 100% their own fault, even China is coming around to that.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hutch622

Not until they're in port, and then it's a tiny fraction of containers.


All containers pass through passive-detection radiation portal monitors as they are trucked to the exit gates or intermodal yards in a port.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hutch622

Not until they're in port, and then it's a tiny fraction of containers.


All containers pass through passive-detection radiation portal monitors as they are trucked to the exit gates or intermodal yards in a port.

No they aren't.
link



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: hutch622

Not until they're in port, and then it's a tiny fraction of containers.


All containers pass through passive-detection radiation portal monitors as they are trucked to the exit gates or intermodal yards in a port.

No they aren't.
link


Yes they are.

Among them, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), scans every container entering the United States by sea or land to detect radiation.1 CBP also identifies about 5 percent of all incoming seaborne containers as high risk, and it inspects those containers with X-ray or gamma-ray imaging systems.

Passive scanning is different than active imaging. Passive scanning is done on each container, not sure if that would pick up a nuclear device, but I'm thinking it would.
Link
edit on 8-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Did you read your own link? It's the same one I gave you, here's some highlights.

In 2007, the Congress mandated that DHS use both radiation detectors and imaging systems to scan and image all incoming seaborne containers before they are loaded onto a U.S.-bound ship.



The law gave DHS until 2012 to fully implement this system, but the deadline has been extended three times and is now 2018


Regarding domestic scanning

Raising the imaging rate to 100 percent of containers at all 74 U.S. ports that receive international containers (Option 4) would increase costs by $4 billion to $8 billion over 10 years

Raising to 100% would mean that it isn't 100%


edit on 8-3-2017 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


In this study, “scan” means to use a passive radiation monitor to detect radiation—that is, without the scanner emitting radiation of its own. By contrast, active radiation monitors emit some radiation and look for a response from the object being monitored


Among them, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), SCANS EVERY CONTAINER ENTERING THE UNITED STATES BY SEA OR LAND TO DETECT RADIATION.1 CBP also identifies about 5 percent of all incoming seaborne containers as high risk, and it inspects those containers with X-ray or gamma-ray imaging systems.

100 % of containers pass through the passive radiation scanner.

Like I said i'm unsure if the passive scanner would pick up a nuclear device, but I am guessing it would.
Each and every container HAS to go through that passive scanner as it is trucked out.
edit on 8-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Are you purposely only reading the parts you want and ignoring the rest? The system is meant for scanning containers BEFORE leaving the foreign port, and is not implemented 100% I see you only made it through the summary, so keep reading.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: D8Tee

Are you purposely only reading the parts you want and ignoring the rest? The system is meant for scanning containers BEFORE leaving the foreign port, and is not implemented 100% I see you only made it through the summary, so keep reading.

Jesus Vector, you have comprehension problems and are pointing the finger at me, that is annoying. Twist it whatever way you want, there is not a container shipped to the USA that doesn't go through that passive radiation detector before leaving the shipyard, there's no other way for it to happen. The container is loaded onto a truck, as the truck leaves the yard it passes through the passive radiation detector. End of story. Unless you are going to cut a whole in the fence and bypass the passive scanner, you cannot get around it. Try looking on page 33 of your link and pay attention to the diagram if you cannot comprehend this.

Again, I am not saying this will detect a nuclear device in every case, but it doesn't take away from the fact that each and every container goes through a passive radiation detector.


Under the current system, after containers arrive at U.S. ports, CBP subjects them to at least one system to detect nuclear threats (radiation portal monitoring). The agency may subject containers to three other security layers (secondary radiation monitoring systems, nonintrusive imaging, and physical searches) if they are identified as high risk in ATS or raise concerns for other reasons.

edit on 8-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:45 AM
link   
""China warned of a "head-on collision" Wednesday unless North Korea stops launching banned missiles and the United States and South Korea halt their joint military exercises.

"The two sides are like two accelerating trains coming toward each other, with neither side willing to give way," Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in Beijing at his annual news conference for the opening of the National People's Congress, China's parliament.""

www.msn.com...



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
""China warned of a "head-on collision" Wednesday unless North Korea stops launching banned missiles and the United States and South Korea halt their joint military exercises.

"The two sides are like two accelerating trains coming toward each other, with neither side willing to give way," Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in Beijing at his annual news conference for the opening of the National People's Congress, China's parliament.""

www.msn.com...

I doubt the administration is going to let China dictate to them that the wargames must be stopped.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Actually you are correct, I mistook imaging and scanning for what you said, passive radiation scanning. My apologies



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Maybe all dialogue should be vetted by the UN with an open discussion being at the fore ...

China would therefore be a side player ... not a referee with an agenda.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: D8Tee

Actually you are correct, I mistook imaging and scanning for what you said, passive radiation scanning. My apologies

Apology accepted. The passive radiation detectors are far from perfect, there are ways around this type of detection, such as shielding with lead. Active scanning would pick this up as it would present as a 'dense' object. Here's a quote from the article.

The radiological materials best suited for a radiological weapon tend to be highly radioactive and to emit much easily detectable radiation (although some exceptions exist). But some fissile materials useful for making nuclear weapons (particularly highly enriched uranium) are harder to detect because they have low levels of radioactivity. Those fissile materials can also be shielded with dense materials such as lead or bricks, which absorb some of the gamma or neutron radiation and thus make them harder to detect. The passive radiation detectors placed outside shipping containers can usually detect emissions from materials for radiological weapons but are less effective at detecting emissions from nuclear weapons and the fissile materials used to make them

edit on 8-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Miracula2



Please don't attempt to portray them as innocents at sea being swarmed by evil sharks. It doesn't work.


Neither is the US. Giving money and arms to the Mujahadeen, illegal combatants not representing a legally recognized state army wearing a flag to represent their legally recognized state isn't exactly choir boy behavior. And not only did it cost 14k Russian soldiers their lives eventually arming and supporting terrorists cost 2500 US citizens their lives on September 11th.

One of the few times that Christ got verbally angry wasn't when people were demonstrating faults like the prostitute he associated with, Mary Magdalene.....It was when they were demonstrating HYPOCRISY.




top topics



 
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join