3 ms·
> 2. Notwithstanding #1, there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11. How much is due to the TSA, as opposed to civilia
by zeemonkee3 10y ago
> 2. Notwithstanding #1, there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11.
How much is due to the TSA, as opposed to civilian and military intelligence work at home and abroad and simple measures such as having air marshals and preventing any access to the cockpit during flight?
- lisper 10y agoI think it's pretty clear that it's because there are actually very few terrorists in most of the world, and certainly very few of them in the U.S. The fact of the matter is that a terrorist attack is trivial to conduct, especially if you're willing to die for the cause. There are just a ridiculous number of soft targets out there. It's simply not possible to secure them all. The only reasonable explanation (AFAICT) for why NYC doesn't look like Baghdad, with car bombs going off on a regular basis, is that the number of actual terrorists in the U.S. is indistinguishable from zero.
- sgnelson 10y agoI'd argue the 2nd part has more to do with passengers simply paying attention. The underwear bomber and shoe bomber were both caught by fellow passengers (iirc), not by the TSA or the CIA/NSA/FBI/Military.
- tyingq 10y ago>> 2. Notwithstanding #1, there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11. >How much is due to the TSA I would say a large part of it is because a 9/11 style attack just wouldn't work anymore. 9/11 worked only because the passengers were thinking "hijacking", where there was some chance to live. Once the passengers understand the consequences (as with United 93), they will fight back. That totally changes the risk/reward profile for terrorists. Your chances of taking down the plane are lower, and your chances of aiming it at a high value target are almost nil.