A Decision Tree Model for Evaluating Countermeasures to Secure Cargo at United States Southwestern Ports of Entry

References

• Allison G.Nuclear Terrorism (2004) (Times Books, New York) Google Scholar
• Allison G. The will to prevent. Harvard Internat. Rev. (2006) 28(3):50–55Google Scholar
• Bakir N. O., Pakdaman D. An analysis of truck cargo security at southwestern borders and potential impacts of cross-border trucking services of Mexican carriers on terrorism risk exposure. (2006) . National Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
• Bonner R. C. Statement of Robert C. Bonner—Hearing before the permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (2005) . http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/STMTBONNERCBP.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Bronskill J., Bailey S. Dirty bomb would cause panic, cost billions: Study. TheStar.com (2007) . http://www.thestar.com/article/231670Google Scholar
• Bunn M., Wier A. Terrorist nuclear weapon construction: How difficult? Ann. Amer. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. (2006) 607:133–149Crossref, Google Scholar
• Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science Port of entry annual report. (2006) . http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/PortofEntry/PortOfEntryreportdraft5_23_06.docGoogle Scholar
• Cohen S. S., Haveman J. D., Shatz H. J. Boom boxes: Containers and terrorism. Protecting the Nation's Seaports: Balancing Security and Cost (2006) (Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco) 91–128Google Scholar
• Cooper M. H. Nuclear proliferation and terrorism. CQ Researcher (2004) 14(13):297–320Google Scholar
• CRS North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): The future of commercial trucking across the Mexican border. (2004a) . Report, Order Code RL31738, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• CRS Border security: Inspections practices, policies, and issues. (2004b) . Report, Order Code RL32399, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• Davis P. K., Henninger A. Analysis, analysis practices, and implications for modeling and simulation. (2007) (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA) Google Scholar
• de Rugy V. Is port security making us safer? (2005) (American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C.) Google Scholar
• Flynn S. E.America the Vulnerable (2004a) (Harper Collins, New York) Google Scholar
• Flynn S. E. Rethinking the role of the U.S.-Mexican border in the post-9/11 world. (2004b) . Written testimony before a hearing of the committee on foreign relations United States Senate on “U.S.-Mexico: Immigration Policy and The Bilateral Relationship”Google Scholar
• GAO Commercial trucking: Safety concerns about Mexican trucks remain even as inspection activity increases. (1997) . GAO/RCED-97-68, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• GAO U.S.-Mexico border: Better planning coordination needed to handle growing commercial traffic. (2000) . GAO/NSIAD-00-25, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• GAO Container security: Expansion of key customs programs will require greater attention to critical success factors. (2003) . GAO-03-770, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• GAO Container security: A flexible staffing model and minimum equipment requirements would improve overseas targeting and inspection efforts. (2005a) . GAO-05-557, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• GAO Preventing nuclear smuggling: DOE has made limited progress in installing radiation detection equipment at highest priority foreign seaports. (2005b) . GAO-05-375, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• GAO Border security: Investigators transported radioactive sources across our nation's borders at two locations. (2006a) . GAO-06-583T, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• GAO Combating nuclear smuggling: Challenges facing U.S. efforts to deploy radiation detection equipment in other countries and in the United States. (2006b) . GAO-06-558T, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• GAO Combating nuclear smuggling: DHS has made progress deploying radiation detection equipment at U.S. ports of entry, but concerns remain. (2006c) . GAO-06-389, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• GAO Combating nuclear smuggling: DHS's cost-benefit analysis to support the purchase of new radiation detection portal monitors was not based on available performance data and did not fully evaluate all the monitors' costs and benefits. (2007) . GAO-07-133R, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• Gardner F. Al Qaeda “was making dirty bomb”. BBC News Online (2003) Google Scholar
• Gordon P., Moore J. E., Richardson H. W., Pan Q., Richardson H. W., Gordon P., Moore J. E. The economic impact of a terrorist attack on the twin ports of Los Angeles–Long Beach. The Economic Impacts of Terrorist Attacks (2005) (Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA) 262–286Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gordon P., Moore J. E., Park J., Richardson H. W. The economic costs of border closure: A state-by-state analysis. (2007) Presentation at CREATE 2007 Economic Symposium: Global Business and the Terrorist ThreatAugustUniversity of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
• Haralambides H. E., Londono-Kent M. P. Supply chain bottlenecks: Border crossing inefficiencies between Mexico and the United States. Internat. J. Transport Econom. (2004) 31(2):171–183Google Scholar
• Jamieson J. L., Harrison R. Opening the border to cross-national truck traffic: The Texas perspective. (2002) . Research Report for Center for Transportation ResearchGoogle Scholar
• Lee F., Drennan R. T., Perez L. Understanding the U.S./Mexico border crossing process. (2004) . Report for Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaGoogle Scholar
• Lugar R. G. The Lugar survey on proliferation threats and responses. (2005) . http://lugar.senate.gov/reports/NPSurvey.pdfGoogle Scholar
• Maerli B. M., Schaper A., Barnaby F. The characteristics of nuclear terrorist weapons. Amer. Behavioral Scientist (2003) 46(6):727–744Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin B. Nuclear power and antiterrorism: Obscuring the policy contradictions. Prometheus (2007) 25(1):19–29Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martonosi S. E., Ortiz D. S., Willis H. H., Richardson H. W., Gordon P., Moore J. E. Evaluating the viability of 100 per cent container inspection at America's ports. The Economic Impacts of Terrorist Attacks (2005) (Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA) 218–241Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mireles R. C., Morton R. Proceed with caution: Cargo security in Mexico. Transportation & Distribution (2001) 42(3):31–33Google Scholar
• Ojah M. I., Stockton W. R., Luskin D. M., Harrison R. Truck transportation through border ports of entry: Analysis of coordination systems. (2002) . Research Report 50-1XXA3038, Texas Transportation InstituteGoogle Scholar
• Rooney B. Detecting nuclear weapons and radiological materials: How effective is available technology? (2005) . Testimony Before Subcommittee on Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack, and Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology, The House Committee on Homeland SecurityGoogle Scholar
• Rosoff H., von Winterfeldt D. A risk and economic analysis of dirty bomb attacks on the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Risk Anal. (2007) 27(3):533–546Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tirschwell P. Finally, a national war against cargo crime. J. Commerce (1999) June 18):8Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt D., O'Sullivan T. Should we protect commercial airplanes against surface-to-air missile attacks by terrorists? Decision Anal. (2006) 3(2):63–75Link, Google Scholar