5 ms·

That isn't really what that test is about. They don't think there's a 99% or even 80% chance that it's a bomb. They think there might be a 0.0001% chance that i

by KayEss 11y ago

That isn't really what that test is about. They don't think there's a 99% or even 80% chance that it's a bomb. They think there might be a 0.0001% chance that it's a bomb so they're going to test (along with hundreds, thousands and eventually millions of others that nobody thinks might be bomb) just to put off anybody thinking that this is an effective way to smuggle a bomb onto a plane.

jimktrains2 11y ago
My point is if it's a bomb, you shouldn't touch it, at all. If you don't think it's a bomb, you're being annoying. Which is it? Moreover, why even target a plane? A bomb in a security checkpoint is just as, if not more, scary and deadly.
- dwild 11y ago
  Let say you are a terrorist, would you try to bring a bomb through security like that? Situation A: They mostly never check bags because they need to close the airport for it. Situation B: They mostly check bags. Just increasing the odds of being checked is a deterrent. > A bomb in a security checkpoint is just as, if not more, scary and deadly. Is it really? I'm not that good in physic but a plane that explode, or that's hijacked does at least 100 deaths, and has the potential to do even more. Could you do that at a security checkpoint?
  - jimktrains2 11y ago
    > Let say you are a terrorist, would you try to bring a bomb through security like that? Situation A: They mostly never check bags because they need to close the airport for it. Situation B: They mostly check bags. B doesn't exist though. The TSA has an abysmal record of passing tests. They mostly don't check bags, and if they did check one with a bomb, the attacker could make it go kaboom. You don't think that would make the public fearful? "Bomb at Security Checkpoint" as a headline would be terrifying to most people. > Is it really? I'm not that good in physic but a plane that explode, or that's hijacked does at least 100 deaths, and has the potential to do even more. Could you do that at a security checkpoint? Have you ever been to a security checkpoint? At a larger airport there is easily hundreds of people in line, usually in a confined space.
    - dwild 11y ago
      > The TSA has an abysmal record of passing tests. Probably but my point is all about fear of getting caught before succeeding. Does the truth matter as much as the fear? > You don't think that would make the public fearful? "Bomb at Security Checkpoint" as a headline would be terrifying to most people. Well finding a bomb doesn't mean it will actually explode and as long as the number of death is way smaller, they would have way better target than that (one that doesn't have a ton of security guards and multiple layer to stop you). > Have you ever been to a security checkpoint? At a larger airport there is easily hundreds of people in line, usually in a confined space. I haven't no but by what I see they aren't in confined space, the walls are far away, and they are one in front of the other, acting like human shield.
      - jimktrains2 11y ago
        > Probably but my point is all about fear of getting caught before succeeding. My point is that the fall back is not "go to jail", the fall back would be "blow up the security line." Also, are random chemical checks (which are looking for something very rare by sampling a very small population, hmmmm) any more helpful than the screenings that are also taking place, notably X-ray imaging? > Does the truth matter as much as the fear? No, it matters much less it seems :( > Well finding a bomb doesn't mean it will actually explode In context, the hypothetical headline meant a bomb had gone off. > as the number of death is way smaller, they would have way better target than that (one that doesn't have a ton of security guards and multiple layer to stop you). Smaller than what? 50 people vs 100? 100 vs 200? it's still a terrible thing and will have a very similar affect on the public. > I haven't no but by what I see they aren't in confined space, the walls are far away, Most of the ones I've been in are basically tunnels are bridges 100' or so across. Sometimes the lines themselves pour out into the rest of the terminal, which is less confined. > and they are one in front of the other, acting like human shield. I honestly couldn't tell you how people squashed together would work, from a physics perspective, but I don't think it's pretty or clean regardless. This all detracts from the main topic: their scanning procedures are antithetical (and statistically suspect) to the handling (and rarity) of what they're looking for.
chrismcb 11y ago
It would still be fairly easily to smuggle a bomb through security. But it would be even easier to smuggle it in through one of the other entry points into the airport. Or just build a bomb with stuff found on the inside.

by KayEss 11y ago

jimktrains2 11y ago

My point is if it's a bomb, you shouldn't touch it, at all. If you don't think it's a bomb, you're being annoying. Which is it? Moreover, why even target a plane? A bomb in a security checkpoint is just as, if not more, scary and deadly.

dwild 11y ago
Let say you are a terrorist, would you try to bring a bomb through security like that? Situation A: They mostly never check bags because they need to close the airport for it. Situation B: They mostly check bags. Just increasing the odds of being checked is a deterrent. > A bomb in a security checkpoint is just as, if not more, scary and deadly. Is it really? I'm not that good in physic but a plane that explode, or that's hijacked does at least 100 deaths, and has the potential to do even more. Could you do that at a security checkpoint?
- jimktrains2 11y ago
  > Let say you are a terrorist, would you try to bring a bomb through security like that? Situation A: They mostly never check bags because they need to close the airport for it. Situation B: They mostly check bags. B doesn't exist though. The TSA has an abysmal record of passing tests. They mostly don't check bags, and if they did check one with a bomb, the attacker could make it go kaboom. You don't think that would make the public fearful? "Bomb at Security Checkpoint" as a headline would be terrifying to most people. > Is it really? I'm not that good in physic but a plane that explode, or that's hijacked does at least 100 deaths, and has the potential to do even more. Could you do that at a security checkpoint? Have you ever been to a security checkpoint? At a larger airport there is easily hundreds of people in line, usually in a confined space.
  - dwild 11y ago
    > The TSA has an abysmal record of passing tests. Probably but my point is all about fear of getting caught before succeeding. Does the truth matter as much as the fear? > You don't think that would make the public fearful? "Bomb at Security Checkpoint" as a headline would be terrifying to most people. Well finding a bomb doesn't mean it will actually explode and as long as the number of death is way smaller, they would have way better target than that (one that doesn't have a ton of security guards and multiple layer to stop you). > Have you ever been to a security checkpoint? At a larger airport there is easily hundreds of people in line, usually in a confined space. I haven't no but by what I see they aren't in confined space, the walls are far away, and they are one in front of the other, acting like human shield.
    - jimktrains2 11y ago
      > Probably but my point is all about fear of getting caught before succeeding. My point is that the fall back is not "go to jail", the fall back would be "blow up the security line." Also, are random chemical checks (which are looking for something very rare by sampling a very small population, hmmmm) any more helpful than the screenings that are also taking place, notably X-ray imaging? > Does the truth matter as much as the fear? No, it matters much less it seems :( > Well finding a bomb doesn't mean it will actually explode In context, the hypothetical headline meant a bomb had gone off. > as the number of death is way smaller, they would have way better target than that (one that doesn't have a ton of security guards and multiple layer to stop you). Smaller than what? 50 people vs 100? 100 vs 200? it's still a terrible thing and will have a very similar affect on the public. > I haven't no but by what I see they aren't in confined space, the walls are far away, Most of the ones I've been in are basically tunnels are bridges 100' or so across. Sometimes the lines themselves pour out into the rest of the terminal, which is less confined. > and they are one in front of the other, acting like human shield. I honestly couldn't tell you how people squashed together would work, from a physics perspective, but I don't think it's pretty or clean regardless. This all detracts from the main topic: their scanning procedures are antithetical (and statistically suspect) to the handling (and rarity) of what they're looking for.

chrismcb 11y ago

It would still be fairly easily to smuggle a bomb through security. But it would be even easier to smuggle it in through one of the other entry points into the airport. Or just build a bomb with stuff found on the inside.