8 ms·

I'm not convinced the TSA is the best solution, but I still think bag checks helps. Let's say we "move the target" from on board a plane to the people clustered

I'm not convinced the TSA is the best solution, but I still think bag checks helps. Let's say we "move the target" from on board a plane to the people clustered at the security check itself. A bomb goes off and kills 100 in the airport. That's bad. A smaller bomb goes off on the plane, decompresses the cabin of an international flight, and 600 people die. You get more bang for your buck if you take out the plane, so maybe some of this makes sense? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

raldi 10y ago
If you want to kill 600 people, it's a lot easier to put ten bombs on ten buses, or six bombs on six security lines, than one bomb on one airplane.
- adevine 10y ago
  Putting 10 bombs on 10 buses requires a lot more planning and terrorists, which greatly enhances the chance of getting caught. Especially in the US, where much of the risk is currently centered around "lone wolf"-type attacks, anything that would require a greater number of people seems like it would be a significant deterrent.
  - raldi 10y ago
    I don't follow. Overnight bus parking lots tend to have very little security. Luggage loaded onto buses gets very little screening. A single person could easily put bombs on multiple buses and then slip away. Or ten people could do it. It's probably a lot easier to find ten recruits willing to load bombs onto buses and escape than to find one recruit willing to die by bringing a bomb onto a plane.
    - jacalata 10y ago
      Even easier to find one person willing to give ten recruits a carefully wrapped package of "drugs" that they think they will deliver at the other end....
    - adevine 10y ago
      If you go around trying to find 10 people to commit mass murder, there is a high likelihood that one of them will turn you in, or that one of them is already under law enforcement scrutiny that will lead to discovery of your plans.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  It's not about killing people, an attack on the airport is a higher profile attack regardless of how many casualties it involved. Attack on the airport also targets people who aren't native, often westerners which is both what these organizations often want and it ensures that it would much more widely reported than "a bus blew up in north eastern turkey" which maybe will get a headline for 2 hours. Attack on an airport tells people see you aren't safe anywhere your "most secure" location with all that security isn't safe, we can get you anywhere any time, this helps to spread the fear both within the country and world wide. Attack on an airport immediately triggers security lockdowns world wide which amplifies the financial cost of the attack globally. Terrorism is often considerably more calculated than what people think, especially when it comes to high profile attacks.
Retric 10y ago
Number of deaths are fairly irrelevant to terrorists. 100 people or 500 don't really make a different to public precipitation which is what they care about. However, box cutters where the weapon of choice for 9/11 you could make spears on board the aircraft and manually kill everyone except the pilots with a few burley and well trained people. Which is the real problem, defensive safety measures cost a lot and switching targets is really cheap for terrorists.
- wmeredith 10y ago
  I can't remember the source, it may have been a stand up comedian, but he said, "Hey, TSA, if I can hijack a plane with nail clippers. I can hijack one without them."
  - Retric 10y ago
    Yea, I thought an interesting plot point would be to have an attack carried out like that with peoples bare hands. So, now people are debating if tranquilizing strong passengers is enough or if we need to tranquilizes everyone.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      Maybe if the risk of death is small enough and it's cheaper than in-flight WiFi.
  - mvdwoord 10y ago
    First thing on my list tonight... airport security. Tired of this shit. There’s too much of it; there’s too much security at the airport. I’m tired of some guy with a double digit IQ and a triple digit income rooting around inside of my bag for no reason and never finding anything! Haven’t found anything yet! Haven’t found one bomb in one bag! And don’t tell me “well, the terrorists know their bags are gonna be searched so now they’re leaving their bombs at home.” There are no bombs. The whole thing is fucking pointless! And it’s completely without logic! There’s no logic at all! They’ll take away a gun, but let you keep a knife! Well what the fuck is that? In fact, there’s a whole list of lethal objects they will allow you to take on board. Theoretically, you could take... a knife, an ice pick, a hatchet, a straight razor, a pair of scissors, a chainsaw, 6 knitting needles, and a broken whiskey bottle, and the only thing they’re gonna say to you is “that bag has to fit all the way under the seat in front of you.” And if you didn’t take the weapon on board, relax; after you’ve been flying for about an hour, they’re gonna bring you a knife and fork. They actually give you a fucking knife! It’s only a table knife but you could kill a pilot with a table knife. It might take you a couple of minutes you know... especially if he’s hefty huh? Yeah but you could get the job done, if you really wanted to kill the prick. Shit, there’s a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with; you could probably beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times couldn’t you? Or suppose you just have really big hands. Couldn’t you strangle a flight attendant? Shit, you could probably strangle two of them; one with each hand... you know, if you are lucky enough to catch them in that little kitchen area... before they give out the fucking peanuts you know? But you could get the job done... if you really cared enough. - George Carlin (1937 - 2008)
exar0815 10y ago
I reckon the TSA-Checks are more of "Lets prevent a Terrorist from using a 500 ton plane with 250.000 litres of high explosive fuel moving at 700km/h against something else" than of "Lets prevent someone from killing the people onboard the plane". Imagine someone ploughing shortly after the start into the Super Bowl. Thats what REAL security nightmares are made of. Even though, even that cant be fully prevented. Best example would be someone like Andreas Lubitz.
- chris_va 10y ago
  Except whatever TSA would catch has mostly been solved with armored cockpit doors. Security money doesn't seem rationally invested.
  - douche 10y ago
    We might as well just consider the TSA a really terrible jobs program.
    - curried_haskell 10y ago
      An atrociously bad jobs program. Because while it gives a ton of people jobs, it bends over society and completely and thoroughly fucks the rest of us.
      - themartorana 10y ago
        Not to mention they look like some downright miserable jobs.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      really terrible jobs program That could be the basis of the worst reality TV show ever! Or one of President Trump's economic programs. Or both.
- Nav_Panel 10y ago
  > more of "Lets prevent a Terrorist from using a 500 ton plane with 250.000 litres of high explosive fuel moving at 700km/h against something else" The most important safety measure against this became mandatory procedure after 9/11: locking the cockpit doors. If the terrorists can't control the plane, they can't use it as a projectile weapon. No amount of killing passengers will give them this kind of access.
wtvanhest 10y ago
I think you are right. Being in a closed cabin at 30,000 feet means that the size of the explosion has to be a lot smaller than on the ground to have the same impact. Additionally, guns can lead to lead to 9/11 situations. More importantly, TSA probably won't defend against a state level threat, but it keeps crazy people from doing ridiculous stuff. Take a look at this pre-security list of incidents: (remember, a lot less people flew back then) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings There is no way not to have security on flights. The next step is making it much faster and more predictable to reduce overall travel time.
- thomasahle 10y ago
  Again, most of these (if not all?) would have been prevented by better cockpit doors and/or air marshal.
  - wtvanhest 10y ago
    How would a better cockpit door and an air marshal stop a guy with 10 lbs of explosives? All he has to do is show it to everyone and he can direct the pilots to fly anywhere he wants. They may not do a 9/11, but they will all do what he says. Some type of security will always be required at airports and probably eventually on high speed trains as well. Now we just need to figure out how to make it way faster and less invasive.
    - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
      The locked door and air marshal stop the plane from becoming a jet-fuel missile directed at any point in range and turn it into a bomb plummeting inaccurately somewhere under its flight path.
    - thomasahle 10y ago
      Parent was about flight high jacking prior to modern airport security.
loeg 10y ago
600 people is an incredibly large plane. Most are more like 160-180.
- wtvanhest 10y ago
  There are plenty of plans with nearly 600 people in capacity. The Airbus A380 has a max capacity of 900 people. If you are going to bring a bomb on a plane, which one would you choose? A 20 person commuter jet or a 900 seat Emirates Air flight from London to NYC? http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-10-biggest-passenger-airplanes/ http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-10-bigge...
  - tamana 10y ago
    Whichever is most convenient, since it's a low probability operation. 9/11 attack would have been 10x worse casualties if it was 1 hr later . Why wasn't it?

raldi 10y ago

If you want to kill 600 people, it's a lot easier to put ten bombs on ten buses, or six bombs on six security lines, than one bomb on one airplane.

adevine 10y ago
Putting 10 bombs on 10 buses requires a lot more planning and terrorists, which greatly enhances the chance of getting caught. Especially in the US, where much of the risk is currently centered around "lone wolf"-type attacks, anything that would require a greater number of people seems like it would be a significant deterrent.
- raldi 10y ago
  I don't follow. Overnight bus parking lots tend to have very little security. Luggage loaded onto buses gets very little screening. A single person could easily put bombs on multiple buses and then slip away. Or ten people could do it. It's probably a lot easier to find ten recruits willing to load bombs onto buses and escape than to find one recruit willing to die by bringing a bomb onto a plane.
  - jacalata 10y ago
    Even easier to find one person willing to give ten recruits a carefully wrapped package of "drugs" that they think they will deliver at the other end....
  - adevine 10y ago
    If you go around trying to find 10 people to commit mass murder, there is a high likelihood that one of them will turn you in, or that one of them is already under law enforcement scrutiny that will lead to discovery of your plans.
dogma1138 10y ago
It's not about killing people, an attack on the airport is a higher profile attack regardless of how many casualties it involved. Attack on the airport also targets people who aren't native, often westerners which is both what these organizations often want and it ensures that it would much more widely reported than "a bus blew up in north eastern turkey" which maybe will get a headline for 2 hours. Attack on an airport tells people see you aren't safe anywhere your "most secure" location with all that security isn't safe, we can get you anywhere any time, this helps to spread the fear both within the country and world wide. Attack on an airport immediately triggers security lockdowns world wide which amplifies the financial cost of the attack globally. Terrorism is often considerably more calculated than what people think, especially when it comes to high profile attacks.

Retric 10y ago

Number of deaths are fairly irrelevant to terrorists. 100 people or 500 don't really make a different to public precipitation which is what they care about. However, box cutters where the weapon of choice for 9/11 you could make spears on board the aircraft and manually kill everyone except the pilots with a few burley and well trained people. Which is the real problem, defensive safety measures cost a lot and switching targets is really cheap for terrorists.

wmeredith 10y ago
I can't remember the source, it may have been a stand up comedian, but he said, "Hey, TSA, if I can hijack a plane with nail clippers. I can hijack one without them."
- Retric 10y ago
  Yea, I thought an interesting plot point would be to have an attack carried out like that with peoples bare hands. So, now people are debating if tranquilizing strong passengers is enough or if we need to tranquilizes everyone.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Maybe if the risk of death is small enough and it's cheaper than in-flight WiFi.
- mvdwoord 10y ago
  First thing on my list tonight... airport security. Tired of this shit. There’s too much of it; there’s too much security at the airport. I’m tired of some guy with a double digit IQ and a triple digit income rooting around inside of my bag for no reason and never finding anything! Haven’t found anything yet! Haven’t found one bomb in one bag! And don’t tell me “well, the terrorists know their bags are gonna be searched so now they’re leaving their bombs at home.” There are no bombs. The whole thing is fucking pointless! And it’s completely without logic! There’s no logic at all! They’ll take away a gun, but let you keep a knife! Well what the fuck is that? In fact, there’s a whole list of lethal objects they will allow you to take on board. Theoretically, you could take... a knife, an ice pick, a hatchet, a straight razor, a pair of scissors, a chainsaw, 6 knitting needles, and a broken whiskey bottle, and the only thing they’re gonna say to you is “that bag has to fit all the way under the seat in front of you.” And if you didn’t take the weapon on board, relax; after you’ve been flying for about an hour, they’re gonna bring you a knife and fork. They actually give you a fucking knife! It’s only a table knife but you could kill a pilot with a table knife. It might take you a couple of minutes you know... especially if he’s hefty huh? Yeah but you could get the job done, if you really wanted to kill the prick. Shit, there’s a lot of things you could use to kill a guy with; you could probably beat a guy to death with the Sunday New York Times couldn’t you? Or suppose you just have really big hands. Couldn’t you strangle a flight attendant? Shit, you could probably strangle two of them; one with each hand... you know, if you are lucky enough to catch them in that little kitchen area... before they give out the fucking peanuts you know? But you could get the job done... if you really cared enough. - George Carlin (1937 - 2008)

exar0815 10y ago

I reckon the TSA-Checks are more of "Lets prevent a Terrorist from using a 500 ton plane with 250.000 litres of high explosive fuel moving at 700km/h against something else" than of "Lets prevent someone from killing the people onboard the plane". Imagine someone ploughing shortly after the start into the Super Bowl. Thats what REAL security nightmares are made of. Even though, even that cant be fully prevented. Best example would be someone like Andreas Lubitz.

chris_va 10y ago
Except whatever TSA would catch has mostly been solved with armored cockpit doors. Security money doesn't seem rationally invested.
- douche 10y ago
  We might as well just consider the TSA a really terrible jobs program.
  - curried_haskell 10y ago
    An atrociously bad jobs program. Because while it gives a ton of people jobs, it bends over society and completely and thoroughly fucks the rest of us.
    - themartorana 10y ago
      Not to mention they look like some downright miserable jobs.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    really terrible jobs program That could be the basis of the worst reality TV show ever! Or one of President Trump's economic programs. Or both.
Nav_Panel 10y ago
> more of "Lets prevent a Terrorist from using a 500 ton plane with 250.000 litres of high explosive fuel moving at 700km/h against something else" The most important safety measure against this became mandatory procedure after 9/11: locking the cockpit doors. If the terrorists can't control the plane, they can't use it as a projectile weapon. No amount of killing passengers will give them this kind of access.

wtvanhest 10y ago

I think you are right. Being in a closed cabin at 30,000 feet means that the size of the explosion has to be a lot smaller than on the ground to have the same impact. Additionally, guns can lead to lead to 9/11 situations. More importantly, TSA probably won't defend against a state level threat, but it keeps crazy people from doing ridiculous stuff. Take a look at this pre-security list of incidents: (remember, a lot less people flew back then) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings There is no way not to have security on flights. The next step is making it much faster and more predictable to reduce overall travel time.

thomasahle 10y ago
Again, most of these (if not all?) would have been prevented by better cockpit doors and/or air marshal.
- wtvanhest 10y ago
  How would a better cockpit door and an air marshal stop a guy with 10 lbs of explosives? All he has to do is show it to everyone and he can direct the pilots to fly anywhere he wants. They may not do a 9/11, but they will all do what he says. Some type of security will always be required at airports and probably eventually on high speed trains as well. Now we just need to figure out how to make it way faster and less invasive.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    The locked door and air marshal stop the plane from becoming a jet-fuel missile directed at any point in range and turn it into a bomb plummeting inaccurately somewhere under its flight path.
  - thomasahle 10y ago
    Parent was about flight high jacking prior to modern airport security.

loeg 10y ago

600 people is an incredibly large plane. Most are more like 160-180.

wtvanhest 10y ago
There are plenty of plans with nearly 600 people in capacity. The Airbus A380 has a max capacity of 900 people. If you are going to bring a bomb on a plane, which one would you choose? A 20 person commuter jet or a 900 seat Emirates Air flight from London to NYC? http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-10-biggest-passenger-airplanes/ http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/the-10-bigge...
- tamana 10y ago
  Whichever is most convenient, since it's a low probability operation. 9/11 attack would have been 10x worse casualties if it was 1 hr later . Why wasn't it?