The reality is that it can be difficult to purchase such cover, because ever since an overwhelming flood of claims was threatened by the Spanish civil war of the 1930s, Lloyd’s and most company market underwriters have refused to insure against what they call “war on land". A few years ago Lloyd’s eased its guidelines a little, and the major mutual TT Club has had a form of cover available for 20 years, but almost no-one else is willing to enter this financial minefield.

In any case, most port authorities and operators question whether they really need such cover, and there would be considerable argument about who should compensate a cargo owner if warring parties damaged or destroyed goods under a port operator’s care and control.

What many ports do consider buying is terrorist risk insurance. It is unclear how many ports take such precautions – one can only guess that it is perhaps half of the world’s major facilities. They can find the cover fairly cheaply, as there is plenty of insured capacity, and terrorist risk pricing has slid considerably since the massive hikes in all types of premiums following the September 11 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

While there has been much talk of the risk of a militant group placing a dirty bomb inside a shipping container targeted at, say, Hong Kong, Singapore or San Francisco, the chance of such an attack being successful is slim. The big container ports have tightened their security over the last decade, and while 100% scanning of boxes remains a dream, ports are well aware that their systems and operations come under the piercing gaze of US military and coastguard authorities.

 If terrorists did manage to commit an atrocity blasting a terminal, the liability outcome would be complex, to say the least. It is a moot point whether a port could be held liable for someone having planted a bomb on goods passing through.