Apparently the Canadians have a different view of the probability of a maritime security threat than our own DHS. A post on cimsec.org talks about it, and the possibility of more international coordination.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog
Apparently the Canadians have a different view of the probability of a maritime security threat than our own DHS. A post on cimsec.org talks about it, and the possibility of more international coordination.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
The reason we have concluded that there is a low risk of terrorism against North American shipping and ports, and along shared waterways, is because that is what the measured weight of the available intelligence indicates it to be.
I doubt the Canadians have a special treasure trove of information that we aren’t privy to. What it does sound like to me is that this particular group is beating the threat drums in order to scare up budget money for the maritime security mission.
Agreed. In addition (and this is under the handicap of reading an article about 2 reports which I haven’t read), this article seems to be understating the differing perspectives of the two reports and over-stating the contrast between the reports.
The US report is analyzing the threat to the US, which IS low, both because of the vast improvements in maritime domain awareness, and the overall improvement in the USCG’s capability as a homeland protector. Combine that with having terrorists on the run worldwide and the intelligence information, and it is an accurate statement of the US’ risk.
The Canadian report is written by Canada and about Canada. Again having not read the original source, I’m betting that report reflects a much lower sense of urgency having gone into play by Canada after 9-11, and why shouldn’t it be lower? After all, they weren’t the target of the attack; the “evil” US was. Now sharing a border with the US increases their risk of having terrorists present, but it’s more likely Canada would be a transfer point to get into US, not a target itself. Still, I’m sure Canada wants to be a good neighbor (and not look bad for not catching onto any terrorists in their midst), but that’s a far different sense of urgency.
Overall, the article looks to me to be an obvious attempt to increase site traffic over a contrast that’s not really there…
Perhaps just a lot of noise but interesting never the less. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/isis-well-buy-nuclear-weapon-from-pakistan-within-12-months-and-do-something-truly-epic-31245287.html
An attack in Europe seems more likely, but while harder to stage, an attack in the US is still the prestige target of choice,
A couple of lines suggest perhaps a maritime target, or at least a maritime delivery system,
“And if not a nuke, what about a few thousand tons of ammonium nitrate explosive? That’s easy enough to make.”
“Remember, all of this has happened in less than a year. How more dangerous will be the lines of communication and supply a year on from today?”
remember that the firebombing of Tokyo did more damage, and killed more people than the A-bombs. So it doesn’t have to be Nuclear, just the right target.
I had some thoughts on targets here: https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2011/02/08/a-tale-of-two-harbor-defense-organizations-part-three/
But I might add the LNG facilities on the Gulf coast. Not only would it be spectacular, increasing ISIS street cred, but if you buy into the theory that elements in Saudi Arabia are behind ISIS, an attack on US energy suppliers would help their bottom line. They certainly should have expertise on where the vulnerabilities of the energy industry are.
I should have said right target and right munitions. When they first started bombing Japan they were using tactics that they used in Germany, but they adapted and learned that fire bombs do better than regular iron bombs against paper targets. and ended up creating a firestorm over Tokyo.