Gargoyle

They could take out a quarter of a major city and kill 10,000 people. I truly believe that will have a greater effect; hijacking scares ma and pa kettle away from flying. Blowing up a city scares them from being in their homes, in their cities, in their workplaces. I recall the nationwide fear/insecurity after 9/11, and this could be greater, because it would hit home.

I don't think you comprehend how much devastation such an explosion could cause.

The Katrina comparison was strictly to point out how totally unprepared the DHS is for this kind of thing- they are spending billions on shoes and water bottles, but not preparing for the "unexpected" or for strikes anywhere other than past the sterile zone and inside an airplane. (wouldn't 10 suicide bombers at security checkpoints or crowded check-in counters of 10 major airports have a gigantic effect on our economy and air travel? TSA doesn't consider that)

law dawg

Perhaps. I'm not sure. The visceral effect of aviation has been proven. The jury is out on bombs, mainly because you need a lot of them to really hit a city. A building yes, city no. Its not been done yet. It is exceedingly difficult and complicated to pull off. You have to plan for those things that are most likely, given limited resources. Plan for what happens most and you'll handle most of what happens.

Yes sir (I am assuming you are a sir, if not my sincere apologies), I do. I was at Oklahoma City in 95.

In this aspect you are dead on.

Gargoyle

The London and Madrid train bombings did not have the visceral effect of 9/11. My premise is that blowing up a tanker or freighter could be much more devastating than Oklahama City; it could dislodge a city for two years, and would cause a temporary shutdown of ocean freight, followed by security measures which would double the costs of that freight (effectively killing 50% of my business, and increasing Walmart et. al. prices by 10%) a huge inflation impact.
correct assumption. And, btw, I'm not one of the FT mystery handles, I'm easy to track down.

Ouch- bad but apropriate choice of words.

Doppy

Docks aren't a very sexy target, no, but LNG tankers, on the other hand:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9810/

Gargoyle

My point is Ports, not Docks. The different word brings up different imagery of the magnitude of the threat.

From the article you cite, two things stand out:

The book I mentioned earlier, The Outlaw Sea, has a large section on the hijacking/piracy of freighters. It's a relatively easy crime to pull off, and has been done often. After a hijacking, it takes them about 24 hours to completely disappear, including repainting and renumbering the ship. And it is very unlikely for them to be caught in that first 24 hours.