01:00 AM EDT on Friday, October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON

IN THE FIRST presidential debate, which made Democrats think that the presidency is very nearly theirs, John Kerry went through a list of domestic projects that he believes are needed to make America more secure from terrorists. Better safeguarding American ports was one of his concerns. Why, he said, in a swipe at President Bush, 95 percent of the containers arriving on our shores are not inspected.

Okay, Senator, have them inspected if you ascend to the White House. We will then not have to fear that terrorists will destroy us, for you will have done it in one fell swoop. Looking in each and every one of these containers would be so time-consuming as to bring not just the American economy but the economy of the world to a halt. It would be the virtual equivalent of shutting down trade.

The issue is more than retailers and consumers' having to wait extra weeks and even months for hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of goods, while security officers verify the contents of the millions of containers that reach our shores on cargo ships annually. The problem is also that the container contents include items crucial for our own production. Mess too seriously with this system of exchange, and very little in the global economy would be unaffected.

It does not follow, of course, that America should do nothing, for the very real threat is that a weapon of devastating impact could arrive via ship, perhaps even a nuclear bomb. The point is to think strategically, which is what Congress and the Bush administration have done through a variety of approaches. For instance, U.S. officials are now posted throughout the world, checking on shipments to the United States at points of origin. Each U.S. port has been required to devise its own security plan. Inspections have been significantly increased on those containers judged by a long list of criteria to be most suspect. New technology is being developed and tested -- and might someday make complete or nearly complete inspections a reality that does not threaten trade.

On any given issue of safety within our borders, it is possible to argue that more should be spent, that more should be done, but as Bush said in the first debate, the administration has "tripled the amount of money we are spending on homeland security to $30 billion a year." As he did not say, you could spend the country into bankruptcy with seemingly desirable projects without coming even close to dealing with a fraction of the means by which terrorists could wreak catastrophe.

The nuanced and reasonable way to approach the issue is to pick your shots: to go for major advantage for each dollar spent and not try to do everything. The demagogic and unreasonable way to approach the issue is to employ cheap shots: to point to this or that thing that has not been done, knowing full well that it is utterly impossible to cover every possible contingency, and that scare-tactic opportunities will always be available.

Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers. He can be reached at AmbroseJ@shns.com.