The Origin of Fort Knox, Gold Holdings and Security Measures - Essay Example

The Mystique Behind Fort Knox’s Security: Its Origins, Present and Future of the or The Mystique Behind Fort Knox’s Security: Its Origins, Present and Future I. Introduction Fort Knox is located in north-central Kentucky in the United States; it is one of the country’s major army installations, and the base of several commands including centers for recruiting and training. The fort’s history dates back to 1903, and the military facility earlier known as Camp Knox was redesignated in 1932 as Fort Knox (Rector, 2005). The country’s gold bullion depository is at Fort Knox. The facility also holds the Lincoln Cathedral copy of the British Magna Carta, the St. Blasius-St. Paul copy of the Gutenberg Bible, the United States Declaration of Independence, “the U.S. Articles of Confederation of 1778, the signed copy of the Constitution of the United States, Abraham’s Gettysburg Address of 1863, and the autographed copy of Lincoln’s inaugural address of 1865” (Kleber, 2001, p.311). The Patton museum of Armor and Cavalry is also located at the installation (Fort Knox, 2009). With technological advances in almost every field, the domain of security for high-risk facilities has kept up with the improved systems available. Security is defined by Schneier (2003, p.11) as the prevention of “adverse consequences from the intentional and unwarranted actions of others”, and a security system is a series of countermeasures or mechanisms undertaken to prevent adverse consequences. Thesis Statement: Fort Knox has withstood the test of time, and regardless of the latest technologies, the security structure and procedures are of the highest standards. The mystique behind Fort Knox will be examined by looking at the past and its origin, the present, and the future of this important army installation and security stronghold. II. The Origin of Fort Knox, Gold Holdings and Security Measures The history of Fort Knox dates back to the Civil War (1861-1865), when Union and Confederate armies were located at nearby sites, the region being a gateway between the north and the south. In 1918, the army tradition of training soldiers for combat began at Fort Knox, after the United States bought 40,000 acres of local land, and named the area after General Knox, the nation’s first secretary of war. Armored vehicles such as tanks were introduced in 1916, and armored warfare was adopted by the U.S. in 1920; hence training for armored warfare was included at Fort Knox (Rector, 2005). According to Flynn & Polese (2008), the construction of a depository for gold bullion within the Military Reservation was authorized by Congress in 1935. The Gold Stock at Fort Knox The United States Depository at Fort Knox was built in 1936, ensuring a solid structure of great strength, to withstand any potential security lapses. The facility consists of “16,000 cubic feet of granite, 4,200 cubic yards of concrete, 750 tons of reinforcing steel, and 670 tons of structural steel” (Schneier, 2003, p.147). The outer wall of the depository is built with granite, and has a concrete lining. Inside, is a steel and concrete vault with a 20 ton door and a roof independent of the depository’s roof. The building is 105 feet by 121 feet, with a height of 42 feet. The U.S. Bullion Depository was put into use from 1937, when the first cargoes of gold arrived by ship from New York and Philadelphia (Kleber, 2001). It is clear that by ensuring a strong barrier to provide excellent defense, the simplest preventive counter-measure is taken. These barriers are built to withstand sustained attack, by people for whom only the combination to open the lock is an unknown factor. The main preventive contribution done by the barriers is to buy time, to provide time for the various alarms to ring, displaying detection of the security break-down, and for the guards to come running in response to the alarm bells (Schneier, 2003). Significantly, not only is protection important, it is certain that without detection and response, the thief will successfully get away after breaking in and stealing the valuables. Detection and response are not only cheaper, but more effective than the provison of additional prevention. Further, detection makes up for shoddy prevention. It is important to note that though walls, locked doors, and barbed wire fences are all good protective security measures, they are not strong enough to completely withstand planned and determined attack; and if they fail, the next line of action has to be ready. The triad of prevention, detection and response systems combine together to provide dynamic security, adequate defense and resilience to failure (Schneier, 2003). The barriers help to slow down the criminal, thereby ensuring that there is sufficient time for the detection and response mechanisms to catch the attacker. Hence, at Fort Knox, even with the preventive barriers, the entrances to the depository are under constant guard. Moreover, only authorized personnel are permitted into the facility, and neither tours are conducted of the depository, nor any vistors are allowed into the building. Retrospective detection in the form of audits, and possible future attempts at detection in the form of prediction “do not produce the decisive real time results that most people associate with security systems” (Schneier, 2003, p.147). However, these procedures help to assess and devise ways to improve security systems. The gold depository at Fort Knox contains more than 368,000 gold bars, stacked in 28 separate rooms, in a 2-storey vault. The total worth of the gold is estimated at $100 billion (Yomtov, 2009). It constitutes over 147 million troy ounces of gold, which is more than half of the total gold of 248 million troy ounces held by the Treasury. Most of the gold bars are of the size of a box of bank checks, but their weight is more than 27 pounds, which is equivalent to 12 kilograms. The gold currently in Fort Knox is the product of melting Depression-era gold coins, “from lend-lease arrangements in World War II, and from government operations under the gold standard” (Wood, 1994, p.343). From 1879 to 1933, under the original form of the gold standard, the U.S. dollar was fully convertible to gold for Americans and international traders, and underwent only temporary export restrictions during World War I. However, between 1934 to 1971, the convertibility was not permitted, as also private holdings of gold bullion till late 1974. There has been some doubt regarding the actual presence of large amounts of gold at Fort Knox. Several audits have been carried out over the decades, and no irregularities have been discovered. However, the quantity of gold being held in Fort Knox is much lower than during the peak of the gold standard days. A great deal of gold left the depository at below-market prices late in the era of the international gold standard. Through the 1960s and until 1971, the United States continued its futile attempt to maintain international gold convertibility (Wood, 1994). Some scholars such as Weber (1988) consider the official audits of the depository to be inaccurate; since in their opinion the quantity of gold is even less, as a result of it being given away, due to stealing, or replacement by IOUs. The most valuable use of this public asset of the gold bullion at Fort Knox is “the production and perpetuation of national myth” (Portney, 1982, p.73). Though the author was referring to another public asset, the rangelands, this concept applies equally to the gold at Fort Knox. Since the Fort Knox depository has only minor value as a gold resource or for use in covert payments, its main value lies in the myth created about the gold holding. However, an annual loss of a few billion dollars in interest amounts foregone by not selling the gold and investing the amount, and the annual operating costs of the depository may be worthwhile since “a collapse of the currency is avoided by maintaining a gold stock” (Wood, 1994, p.346). IV. Past Meets Present and the Fort Knox of Today In recent years, technology has changed the methods and procedures at the army installation. New, futuristic combat vehicles are being developed through research at the battle laboratory. In the present day, armor crewmen use “laser range finders and target acquisition computers” (Rector, 2005, p.7). From 2005, a completely digital complex: Wilcox Range is being used. Moreover, soldiers train in a mock city, where realistic situations through simulated urban combat are provided to them. At the same time, the history and traditions of armor are maintained at Fort Knox. Safety and security are similar concepts, and ensuring the former may be more important since the likelihood of accidents may be greater than deliberate attack. However, security is different from safety in that it counters intentional action, whereas the latter is concerned with unintentional action or accidents (Schneier, 2003).. At the Fort Knox gold depository, several security measures and counter-measures against attack are in place, to ensure maximum protection to the high-risk facility. Countermeasures are the individual and independent security components. According to Life Magazine (December 12, 1960), heavy patrolling is carried out in the area outside the depository’s fence. Armored vehicles are permanently at stand-to, ready for any emergency when they will be immediately pressed into action on Bullion Boulevard. The only entrance to the depository is on Gold Vault Road, where no tourists are allowed to venture close. This is ensured by high power alarm systems which get activated by cable and an electric eye. In the unlikely eventuality of burglars crashing the gate, search lights would pick them out, and bullets from the pill boxes at the corners of the depository would wipe them out. The fence surrounding the facility is electrified, and any attempt to tunnel under the fence to the grassy area inside would result in an overdose from a pill box. Any mob that cracks the outer wall of the depository, and tries to enter by creating a hole in the wall of the vault with an acetylene torch, would be liquidated by a stream of poisonous gases that will be automatically unleashed. Further, the roof of the depository is bomb-proof, and the vault itself, composed of “two underground stories surrounded by offices and machinery rooms has another bomb-proof roof” (Life Magazine, 1960, p.21). The gold is stocked in cages with locked doors securely sealed with ribbons. Moreover, regularly guards communicate by phone to the army post, that all is well. Despite all the security arrangements, in case of an attack, the vault will get flooded with water. Additionally, according to Yomtov (2009), it is likely that motion detectors and video cameras provide continuous surveillance for security. One of the methods by which maximum protection is achieved, is by distributing the control of security to many persons, instead of only one person being responsible. This method prevents security lapses resulting in stealing, or betrayal of the country which can occur when power is centralised in a single person. This system is applied in the case of the Fort Knox facility with its stock holding of gold bullions as well as high-security political documents. “The vault at Fort Knox works in a similar fashion; no one person knows the combination; but several people know pieces of the combination” (Schneier, 2003, p.142). Other examples where similar security counter-measures are adopted are nuclear missile launching locations, and high-value corporate checking accounts which require the presence of two or more persons at the same time. Many counter-measures are ineffective in preventing adverse consequences, or their trade-offs or cost of implementing the measures do not make it worth undertaking them. Relying on technology has been found to be unfeasible. Technology may be useful and may solve numerous problems, improving human lives in a great many ways. However, resolving security problems is different because technology is an enabler, helping people in doing many things. On the other hand, security has the purpose of preventing people from doing particular things, or for preventing something from happening while confronting someone determinedly trying to defeat the preventive system. For the above reason, “technology does not work in security the way it does elsewhere, and why an overreliance on technology often leads to bad security, or even the opposite of security” (Schneier, 2003, p.13) which enables the occurrence of adverse consequences as a result of intentional action by others. Poor security measures are considered to be worse than no security at all. This is because by attempting to but not succeeding in achieving security, greater loss of security is created. There is wastage of time, money and efforts in creating security systems that have the potential to easily fall victim to attack, and in many cases they do not address the actual threats. Poor trade-offs result in heavy losses or sacrifices in exchange for very little security. Surrounding oneself with security counter-measures provides a feeling of security, rather than actually achieving the reality of security. Further, the chances are high, of deceiving oneself about the effectiveness of security which in fact does not work (Schneier, 2003). IV. The Future of Fort Knox’s Security A full-fledged public debate has been occurring, regarding the gold holdings of the United States government and that of other countries. “As a result of its central role in the Bretton Woods system” (Young, 2000, p.21), America holds the world’s single largest reserve of gold, and can potentially lose the most if other governments sell off their gold first. Selling all or part of the gold holdings, and the groups whose interests would be impacted by the intervention, need to be determined: whether the gold mine workers, environmental groups, or taxpayer advocates. Continuing to maintain the gold holdings in order to ensure that currency value does not decline sharply, would necessitate the use of increased security support to counter any attacks. With the advent of high technology in practically all domains, it is becoming increasingly easier to crack security arrangements with the help of digital and remote control techniques. Hence, security procedures and counter-measures have to be updated accordingly. The possibility of a single person in charge of the combination to opening the gold vault has to be changed to include a large number of people; with each of them responsible for only a part of the key to opening the vault. Similarly, the locking system used should be of appropriate complexity, to discourage any intent of robbery. Increased use of surveillance cameras, higher power alarm systems, greater presence of armed soldiers if necessary in armored vehicles, constant change of guards to prevent the use of accomplices, and other strategies may be required to prevent any potential robbery plans, attempts or attacks on the depository for its stocks of gold. Although no shadow of doubt should be cast on the integrity of soldiers, even they may fall prey to coercion, threat, or may be tempted by opportunity. Therefore, not all personnel are given complete information, and are told only what they need to know. This is true of any organization, and helps protect its security system. According to Schneier (2003, p.141), “trust should not only be limited, it should also be granted directly” and not indirectly to a third, unknown person. In order to determine which kinds of security are effective and which are not, the following steps need to be taken into consideration: the assets which are being protected, the particular risks to these assets, to what extent the security solution helps in eliminating those risks, any risks caused by the security solution, the specific costs and trade-offs imposed by the security solution. These five steps do not lead to an answer, but provide a tool for evaluating a proposed answer (Schneier, 2003). A further step involves considering whether the security solution is worth it; that is, is the benefit of eliminating the risks worth the additional risks, plus the other trade-offs? “It is not enough for a security measure to be effective” (Schneier, 2003, p.15), it has to be cost-effective also, since resources have certain limits. Moreover, lack of sufficient information may result in guesswork, or in irrelevant comparisons, thus the development of security solutions may be complex and subjective. Hence, the use of high technology products for implementing security measures are not always advisable, and full guarantee about their effectiveness may not be available. Further, changes in security systems need to be carried out as a combined effort, with some people in charge of implementing the changes, others to ensure that the change has been made accurately, and a third group to review the outcome to ascertain the smooth working of the system without any flaunting of the rules (Schneier, 2003). V. Conclusion This paper has highlighted Fort Knox and its security systems for protecting the country’s gold holdings in its depository. The origins and purpose of Fort Knox, its gold depository and security systems, how the past is related to the Fort Knox of today, and the future of Fort Knox, especially regarding its security, have been examined. Over nearly one century, Fort Knox has continued to grow and develop as one of the most important army establishments in the U.S. The mystique of Fort Knox is found to be related to its distinctive armored corps, cutting edge research, up-to-date development and high quality training of personnel in the latest-technology-based techniques in combat using armored tanks. The security structure and procedures are of the highest standards, because of which the depository for stocking the nation’s gold holdings was constructed and maintained in the installation. By understanding the past and origin of the military base, as well as the present responsibilities shouldered by the facility, it is possible to predict that the future will only show increasing development. The consistent turning out of optimally trained and high calibre military personnel is a unique feature, which is expected to improve even more in the future. Similarly, the stress laid on keeping abreast with the latest technology ensures that the security systems in place will be updated through advanced planning and prediction of future requirements. This will depend on the technological advances in the world that can be used for causing adverse impacts on the facility and the country’s gold depository. References Flynn, K.A. & Polese, R. (2008). The new deal: A 75th anniversary celebration. Layton, Utah: Gibbs Smith Publishers. Fort Knox. (2009). U.S. Army armor center: Fort Knox, Kentucky. Fort Knox Official Website. Retrieved on 9th December, 2009 from: http://www.knox.army.mil/ Kleber, J.E. (2001). The encyclopedia of Louisville. The United States of America: University Press of Kentucky. Life Magazine (December 12, 1960). Fort Knox: There it stands with hoard that U.S. still owns. Life Magazine, 49(24): 15-122. Portney, P.R., Haas, R.B. & Anderson, L.G. (1982). Current issues in natural resource policy. Washington, D.C.: RFF (Resources for the Future) Press. Rector, M.D. (2005). The United States Army at Fort Knox. California: Arcadia Publishing. Schneier, B. (2003).: Beyond fear: Thinking sensibly about security in an uncertain world. New York: Springer. Yomtov, N. (2009). Secret American treasures: From hidden vaults to sunken riches. The United States of America: Capstone Press. Young, J.E. (2000). Gold: At what price?: The need for a public debate on the fate of national gold reserves. Paper prepared for: Mineral Policy Center, Project Underground, and Western Organization of Resource Councils. Retrieved on 9th December, 2009 from: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ssalant/gold%20at%20what%20price.pdf Weber, C. (1988). “… Good as gold”?: How we lost our gold reserves and destroyed the dollar. Virginia: George Edward Durrell Foundation. Wood, W.C. (1994). The gold at Fort Knox. Journal of Economic Education, 25: 343- 348. Read More