Terrorism on Ferries?

Owen

So I went to the UK last week to buy a bike. I got the usual pat down going through the metal detectors, and my luggage was subject to inspection, et al. The comical thing was that on the way back, I drove my bike onto the Ferry with zero security checks. The luggage on my bike could have been full of semtex, and I could easily have sunk the ship.

PowerHouseDan

Yeah i moved over to Wales 2 weeks ago and the car was full of boxs etc and not even looked at

Seth Brundle

I presume the logic is that blowing up a ship would have less impact than blowing up a plane/flying it into a building.
For once I agree with Mick O'Leary about the security checks in the UK being a bit excessive given that the trains are not checked.

dermo88

I reckon they are'nt checking, they are hoping that someone has the common sense to actually bomb Holyhead. Its a kip.

fly_agaric

ned78 wrote:

So I went to the UK last week to buy a bike. I got the usual pat down going through the metal detectors, and my luggage was subject to inspection, et al. The comical thing was that on the way back, I drove my bike onto the Ferry with zero security checks. The luggage on my bike could have been full of semtex, and I could easily have sunk the ship.

Completely talking out my árse but...

I'd guess they'd need a car (or maybe a van or truck) full of powerful explosives to sink the ship quickly enough to ensure that almost everyone on it dies? Alot of explosive, very awkward. Terrorists wail in despair.

Whereas a small bomb successfully smuggled on board an aircraft will result in everyone on the plane dying! Hooray and congrats all around for the terrorists!

[IMO, all only IMO security people].

dam099

kbannon wrote:

I presume the logic is that blowing up a ship would have less impact than blowing up a plane/flying it into a building.

Also I wonder how big a bomb it would take to sink a ship outright and quickly? While the effects of a bomb on those in the immedidate area would obviously be nasty would it possibly be on a similar order of magnitude to the likes of the train bombings provided the ship had adequate life rafts etc. to rescue the surviving passengers unless the ship went down fast?

DerekP11

Maybe its because these "terrorists" hail from the desert and aren't too familiar with car ferries, only US fighter jets raining down Dubyas wrath. Hence their dislike of planes?:D

The possibility of an attack on a car ferry is gaining momentum amongst the general public, if radio phone in shows are anything to go by. I'd estimate that once it happens and personally, I'd be surprised if it doesn't, then lives will be lost and the car ferry industry will be turned upside down. Airport/Airline style security checks for the ferry business, could kill it off.

As for trains? Look what happened on the tube last year? Only intelligence can prevent a repeat, as above mentioned security checks are still lacking and wouldn't be workable anyway.

Then we had what happened in Spain a while back. In my opinion the only thing preventing repeats are lack of resources amongst terrorist organisations, as hardline security is still only being applied to the aviation sector. It could prove very fatal, if terrorists realise how easy ferries and trains are to actually target on a regular basis.

May it never happen.

murphaph

You'd need one big bomb to sink a car ferry. The vehicle decks are all above the water line and so you'd be unlikely to sink the vessel with such a bomb. You'd have to get a device below the waterline and close to the hull. Even if you do, they have watertight bulkheads to seal the damaged section off. All in all I'd say it's easier to down an aircraft than bother with ferries. Be easier to bomb high speed railways if you want maximum casualties. Do it just before a bridge to get a result similar to that disaster at Eschede. This is all very grim

Hotblack Desiato

murphaph wrote:

You'd need one big bomb to sink a car ferry. The vehicle decks are all above the water line

Not on the Herald of Free Enterprise, they weren't... though a catamaran like the HSS is different.

and so you'd be unlikely to sink the vessel with such a bomb.

Agreed.

Planes are targeted because they're relatively easy to bring down, and many people have a huge irrational fear of flying at the best of times so it's very easy to create lots of panic and disruption.

In fact, maybe that was the real intent of the recent plot, certainly the idea of brewing up liquid explosives in a plane toilet is completely ludicrous. So, either these guys had no clue about what they were doing, or they knew exactly what they were doing... that the plan couldn't work but disruption was the aim.

DerekP11

murphaph wrote:

You'd need one big bomb to sink a car ferry. The vehicle decks are all above the water line and so you'd be unlikely to sink the vessel with such a bomb. You'd have to get a device below the waterline and close to the hull. Even if you do, they have watertight bulkheads to seal the damaged section off. All in all I'd say it's easier to down an aircraft than bother with ferries. Be easier to bomb high speed railways if you want maximum casualties. Do it just before a bridge to get a result similar to that disaster at Eschede. This is all very grim

Yeah Grim it is. But whether or not, the ferry is sunk, may be irrelevent. Judging by what these dudes attempt, think of the carnage a bomb would cause, just going off in one of the lounges? or maybe two or three. With explosives, you don't need to sink a ferry to cause carnage. Jesus, Im shuddering just thinking about it as a regular ferry traveller. Maybe we should stop talking about it, just in case some nutbags are reading and we're inadvertently giving them ideas.

John R

ninja900 wrote:

Not on the Herald of Free Enterprise, they weren't

Until it sank they were.

Car decks are always above the waterline. The cars have to drive on, this is easier to do from dry land.

John R

DerekP11 wrote:

Yeah Grim it is. But whether or not, the ferry is sunk, may be irrelevent. Judging by what these dudes attempt, think of the carnage a bomb would cause, just going off in one of the lounges? or maybe two or three. With explosives, you don't need to sink a ferry to cause carnage. Jesus, Im shuddering just thinking about it as a regular ferry traveller. Maybe we should stop talking about it, just in case some nutbags are reading and we're inadvertently giving them ideas.

That could just as easily be done in any area where lots of people congregate; train stations, shopping centres, cinemas, churches.

dermo88

Fire on a Ship is a mariners greatest fear. Thats the biggest risk on a Ferry. In spite of this, modern Ferrys are built to much higher safety specifications. The risk is if terrorists use phosphorus based weapons/explosives, which are very effective for their weight.

You would need a very powerful bomb to sink a Ferry. About 100kg of High explosive on the car deck would be required, and even then, I would seriously doubt that would be enough to do the job. You'd cause carnage, but nothing that could not be fixed in two weeks in any decent shipyard, Dublin Port included. Any worthwhile attempt to sink a Ferry would be detected.

We can speculate all we like about the next move terrorists will make. The worst thing we as citizens in civilised free countries can permit is the removal of the freedoms that we gained in two world wars.

Its leading me to ask a valid question. It was simpler when we had a senile old fart on one side of the Atlantic waiting to press "nuke or nurse", and we had a whole politburo full on the other waiting to do the same.

Now, instead of wondering if Dublin or London won't be glowing in the morning, we wonder if our trains are safe, our cars are safe, our roads are safe. Its truly chaotic.

No amount of profiling can catch this insidious enemy. We can't even do nixers, and earn cash on the side without being scrutinised by the Government. We can't bring in duty free without it being confiscated, because its Liquids on a flight. Air Travel has been made more and more unpleasant since the events of 9th September 2001, and flying was not even that pleasant or relaxing to begin with.

Negotiating with Arafat failed. Negotiating with Hizbollah failed. They can't find Bin Laden. They can't negotiate with Al Queda. Its time for Mossad, the CIA and the FBI to go in there with cattle prods, tazers, bombs, and guns and wipe this from the face of the earth. Guantanamo Bay, go on, fill it up. No questions asked. As for Amnesty International, two fingers. Where were Amnesty on the day the London Underground got bombed. I'm not pro-American, or pro-Israeli, but I am frustrated with all this. I want peace, and unfortunately it looks like its going to take sacrifices to make it possible.

Lets not be fooled. However much we dislike, or hate Bush and Blair, they are a far better option than the alternatives on offer, where you have the Mutawaheen walking the streets with cattle prods in one hand, a Koran on the other. There won't be too much variety in the womens department of Dunnes Stores then, or Pints of Stout on offer in your local. They would like to raid the George and haul everyone within it off to Store Street before burying them beneath a wall, or having a nice old fashioned stoning on Bray Beach.

This is a war for freedom. And our freedom is the ability to say that Bush is stupid, and that Blair is Bushes lapdog. The war in Iraq is a war to prevent a country falling under the same kind of insidious religious theocracy as Iran or Saudi Arabia. Its to prevent a nation that was one of the cradles of modern civlisation and humanity falling into a way of life that supresses progress, knowledge, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and the freedom to live as one chooses, within the boundaries of the laws of commonsense.

Victor

Nice off-topic rant there dermo88, leave it for the politics board.

Terrorism is possible on ferries, but its not as effective or dramatic.

Bombing a crowded building would kill a lot more people.

murphaph

Agreed, sure a fery is made of thick sheets of plate steel. It'd absorb the energy of any explosion much better than any regular bricks and mortar construction. Why would any terrorist group waste 100kg of high explosives on one target that would likely result in relatively few casualities when they cold use 1kg per aircraft?

saobh_ie

Terrorist attacks on shipping are extremely common in fact, potentially more so than aircraft however it doesn’t happen on our side of the world. The prospect of such attacks is pretty horrifying however as they could potentially be executed with much less risk for the perpetrators and claim many more lives (Airbus A380 non-withstanding, what’s the insurance like on those things… yikes).

For one, ships are easy to sink and I’m surprised you have all forgotten two of them that made quite a big impact in the news over here, the 1994 sinking of the M/S Estonia after the doors cracked opened resulting in her capsizing with the loss of 852 lives and the 1987 Herald of Free Enterprise with a similar problem with the loss of 193 lives.

In 2004 a 4kg TNT bomb detonated on ‘SuperFerry 14’ in the Philippines, 64 people were killed and 53 missing out of 900. The vessel was abandoned because of fire and fire fighting efforts eventually resulting in it rolling onto its side, that or its crew ran it around and it fell over when the tide went down.

There are dozens of ways to carry out an attack on a ship however despite their strong internal construction and fire suppression systems.

You could drive a large car bomb onboard and detonate it, run a few recon trips back and forward and learn the load plan for the ship and you can time your arrival to position your car where you think it will make the difference.

You could arrive on ship and place a number of small incendiary devices in various locations, in cabins, the lounges, and the car decks. Before going to your lifeboat station, setting them off and waiting beside the life boats for the abandon ship order. Or you could blow away the lifeboats first, or blow yourself up in the lifeboat.

What about all those immigrants who arrive in containers or on the back of trucks? What if they got out of the truck while at sea armed with assault rifles and explosives. Those with the rifles just go upstairs and start shooting while those with the explosives force their way into the machine spaces/service areas and then hole it below the water line.

What if they get their own boats, high powered motor boat, out into the night after the Ferry has sailed for Roscoff, close up on them and open up with rocket propelled grenades or just slide up beside them and blow yourself up.

Mines. Attach mines to the ships hull; they blow when the ship is farthest from help in winter in the middle of the night. Put a dirty big mine on the bottom of the channel out of the port, when the ship sails overhead blow it, like a torpedo (which are now a days detonated under ships instead of against them, apparently) the resulting air bubble does horrible structural damage and breaches the hull. Ferry floods, rolls and sinks quickly, taking out the Ferry, not so many people (close to shore and rescuers), but shuts down the port. $$$$$$$$.

Chemical weapons. Like the attacks on the Tokyo tube stations but with no hospitals for hundreds on miles and only two ambulances available that need an hour for the round trip.

As regards small explosives bringing planes down quickly and with certainty. All the news papers get to see are flaming craters on mountain sides, where’s the drama? September 11th, that was a spectacle. Major maritime disasters horrify people though, the titanic anyone? Ships burn for days and it takes months to raise them off sand bars etc. There are benefits for the terrorists if they drag things out. Images of people clustered on the foredeck of a ship whose stern is an inferno.

Bodies floating in frigid winter waters.

Also I just watched Mark Williams Big Bangs on Sky tonight. If you’ve got plastic explosives its pretty easy to make shaped charges that will blow a hole clean through plate steel. Also I doubt the doors on commercial shipping are rated to deal with over pressure from an explosion.

So you can attack ferries from the inside, the outside, underneath and above. 737 into the Queen Mary 2 anyone?

Owen

... holy crap. You've really thought this out (Steps away, phones the Gards ... )

dermot_sheehan

Anyone else thinking when seeing thread title:

Snakes.........................................on a ferry,

the fundamental distinction I think is that a car bomb goes off on a ferry, it may or may not start an uncontrollable fire. Generally As far as I know the vehicle decks are above the water line, so if it blew a hole in the side it would not take on water that quickly. The main differance is given time everyone can escape to life rafts. The bomb would have to be so big as to cause damage by blast (in which case you might as well put it in a crowded city street then on a ferry), or else cause the ferry to capzise or sink quickly. In the P and O and Estonia disasters I believe the car deck doors were left open, a car bomb would have to blast a very large hull in the front hull to have that kind of effect. On ships like the HSS where the car deck is high above the water there would be blast damage but no sinkings.

Contrast with a plane, where a relatively small device that damages the structural integrity causes a crash with no survivors

parsi

John R wrote:

Until it sank they were.

Car decks are always above the waterline. The cars have to drive on, this is easier to do from dry land.

Hmm.. I'm fairly sure Deck 2 on the Pont Aven is below it - you drive down into it.

A few years ago Spanish police supposedly foiled a plot to blow up the "Val de Loire" http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,509702,00.html