I would really like to hear your opinions on this one. Since 9/11, the Statue of Liberty has been off limits to the public; not because of the concerns over a possible terrorist attack on the iconic landmark, but because of safety concerns. Is this safety concern an excuse, or has the tradition of climbing up the narrow steps to the crown officially come to an end?
For those of you who have never been inside the Statue, it isn’t a very comfortable climb. Inside the metal structure, you will find 160 steps waiting for you, primarily in a tight spiral that rises up the center of the internal support structure of the Statue. During the summer months, this metal structure becomes an oven, and when you combine that heat with the humidity coming from the New York Harbor, you create the perfect conditions to induce heat exhaustion. When you combine the tight spiral staircase with tourists suffering heat exhaustion in the crown, you create a difficult situation for medical personnel and the National Parks Service. Trying to get the crew up the staircase in a quick enough pace to provide aid, with tourists blocking passage on their way up, in a serious problem.
Unlike the Washington Monument, you are not able to install an elevator within the Statue of Liberty. The staircase, originally designed and intended for maintenance workers rather than tourists, is an integral part of the support structure. Removing the staircase or moving framing members to install a small elevator will compromise the integrity of the structure that has stood for over a century.
With all of these logistical issues, thousands of tourists would visit the crown on a weekly basis before 9/11. Many politicians have questioned why, if it was ok for the tourists to visit the crown before 9/11, why are they banned now? While the medical excuse does make sense (and should have been the cause to close off the Statue to tourists a long time ago), the concern that terrorists might choose to set off an explosive within the iconic structure is also valid in the modern era. The Statue of Liberty is a symbol known around the world for freedom and security. Even the protesters in China’s Tiananmen Square erected their own version of the Statue named “The Goddess of Democracy” back in 1989. Having our Statue defaced or destroyed would be a symbolic act that the terrorists and enemies of the United States would celebrate and use to their advantage in their propaganda campaign.
So I ask you: Should the Statue of Liberty be reopened to the public?
Related artciles:
Scripps News – “Editorial: A crowning achievement”
News Chief – “Open Miss Liberty to the public again”
The Washington Post – “New Administration Inspires Hope for Full Access to Statue”
Just Above Sunset – “The Pesky Question of Just Who Decides What”
Loading ...
It’s a tough one, isn’t it? Why don’t they have an elevator constructed a bit to the side and then unobtrusively have some sort of bridge linking to the crown for a lookout visit?
Certainly barring people from the inside is the correct thing, I think, otherwise you are just inviting trouble.
I hope you guys never EVER let your guard down. The enemy is still out there plotting daily. Daily. It is their job to think up ways to harm America physically.
Great thought-provocking post, man and greetings from Zimbabwe!
Hello, Denford. Nice to meet someone from your part of the world. While having an external elevator to access the Statue would make sense, it would take away from the beauty of the Statue.
9/11 was a clear sign that we are not immune to many of the threats faced by other nations, including that of Zimbabwe. Maybe I should work up a series of articles discussing the threats faced around the world and how that influences US foreign policy. If you have any recommendations on that, please feel free to provide some pointers.
Thanks again, and hope to hear from you again.
I agree with the decision to ban tourists. You have to think the statue would be a prime target for terrorists. Propoganda and symbols play huge parts in war and conflicts and can have significant affects on their outcomes. Think about the famous photo from Iwo Jima and how it renewed support for the war against Japan and Germany.
I think seeing the statue standing there is much more important than being inside it. I think they use the medical/safety excuse because they don’t want it to enter into people’s minds that the statue could be in danger. To me even if the statue did get blown apart it wouldn’t affect my resolve because I realize it is just a symbol, it would piss me off though. Too many other people though it could seriously damage any kind of courage or resolve they had in the first place. Never mind what a rallying point it would be for our enemies to see it fall.
In some ways, I think back to when the British sacked Washington in 1814. They burned the White House, Library of Congress, the Senate and House of Representative chambers and other buildings. While this occurred during a time of war, the symbology is still there. Fortunately, it was more of a rallying point (like 9/11) than a demoralizing event.
Hi John,
Well, from my own vantage point, it is clear that the only thing that influences US foreign policy is US interests. We all know that a president, any president, can’t do much to change the foreign policy of the USA, which is based on your country’s strategic interests.
In Zimbabwe our threat comes only from our government, which is imprisoning even two year olds. But even here in Africa, we have had lives lost in bombings of American embassies. Africans died in those blasts although they have no stake in America.
I guess all this shows that in today’s world, globalised like never before in the history of mankind, most threats are global. They will echo around the world causing tremors and taking lives.
I look forward to reading more from you.