4 ms·

It's a lot harder to murder hundreds of people with a bomb elsewhere. It's possible (eg, Timothy McVeigh) but you need a much bigger bomb. Nobody wants somethin

by TillE 10y ago

It's a lot harder to murder hundreds of people with a bomb elsewhere. It's possible (eg, Timothy McVeigh) but you need a much bigger bomb. Nobody wants something like Lockerbie to be easy. Pre-9/11, pre-Richard Reid airport security was generally sensible and not too much of a burden.

djsumdog 10y ago
We won't know the real truth behind Lockerbie until a good century after America goes the way of Rome, but I'm sure once nationalism leaves the scene there will be a lot of contention about it. Furthermore the same can be said about 9/11. Once could make a legitimate argument that over half of airplane related criminal acts are related directly to US government intervention. But of course, if that's true, most of the evidence is either _lost_ or destroyed.
- sctb 10y ago
  This comment violates the HN guidelines. Please don't derail the discussion by introducing flamewar topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
chimeracoder 10y ago
> It's a lot harder to murder hundreds of people with a bomb elsewhere Airport security lines would be an obvious target with hundreds of people (at the larger terminals). Major cities are full of areas where hundreds of people routinely gather within a small radius. Airplanes aren't special.
BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> It's a lot harder to murder hundreds of people with a bomb elsewhere Not really. Honestly the best places are probably TSA checkpoints considering how slow and clogged they get. In almost any amusement park during the summer (one of the reasons Disney searches all bags and has undercover security everywhere). Time Square at various times. Yes exploding on a plane likely kills 100+ at once but in all honestly I would imagine it's far easier to do it elsewhere you just might need a tiny bit more explosive material. And now I'm thoroughly depressed. Life is so fragile...well on the scale I care about.
- MichaelGG 10y ago
  That's not borne out by actual attacks. The recent airport bombings didn't kill as many people as a single airplane. I'm tempted to blame it on incompetence, but we shouldn't deny the facts.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    > That's not borne out by actual attacks. Are you sure? The majority of largest terrorist attacks, casualty wise, didn't even involve a plane except for September 11th attacks (obviously several did but not the majority) [1]. > The recent airport bombings didn't kill as many people as a single airplane. I'm tempted to blame it on incompetence, but we shouldn't deny the facts. That airport bombing was very different than the suggested TSA security line hypothetical as the airports in Istanbul work fundamentally different (I addressed in the other comment). What facts am I denying? I always try to base my opinion around only facts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_viol...
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Sorry not accusing you of denying facts. I was referring to my suggestion that bombings at security lines were less fatal due to incompetence. As in, I agree that security lines should be high-fatality, but in reality it seems attackers have problems carrying it out. Airplanes might not be targeted as much, but that wiki link shows they are the most deadly per bomb. The other high-fatality bombings were multiple bombs. In the end, my point is that despite the concern for security lines, they don't seem to end up being the massive disaster they could be. Certainly they are not worse than the airplane attacks they seek to prevent, which is the main point.
      - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
        Fair enough
    - deleted 10y ago
koenigdavidmj 10y ago
What about particularly dense urban areas? I'm sure NYC would be perfectly willing to have the right to search all people entering the city (or at least Manhattan, which has a limited set of entry points, so it's easier to check). The Democrats could be convinced with a gun violence argument ("all those guns used to come from nearby states with more lax gun laws, but now we can stop them!"), and the Republicans of course would be satisfied with a bit of talk about terrorism.
- CarpetBench 10y ago
  > I'm sure NYC would be perfectly willing to have the right to search all people entering the city (or at least Manhattan... Uh absolutely not. Nobody who lives in the city would vote for that, ESPECIALLY if it was just for Manhattan (since most people in Manhattan during the day don't live there). NYC transit, much of the time, is a relatively well-oiled machine and introducing a huge delay like that would make the city explode in anger. NYPD already has some "checkpoints" setup outside of certain subway entrances where they "randomly" (you can probably guess how random it is) pull people off to check their baggage. Rarely do they check more than 1/1000 people entering the subway (and that's being extremely generous, it's probably far less frequent), because there might literally be a riot if they backed up an entire subway station checking everyone entering.
  - PhantomGremlin 10y ago
    NYC transit, much of the time, is a relatively well-oiled machine and introducing a huge delay like that would make the city explode in anger. Yeah, I don't think the guy you replied to is familiar with Manhattan at all, otherwise he wouldn't have said "a limited set of entry points". I just counted 16 different subway lines entering Manhattan. And that's only counting "1" for each line the MTA map groups together. And that's not counting the PATH trains. Or all the trains that come into Penn Station. Or all the trains that come into Grand Central. Then there are the bridges. Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburgh, 59th street, Triborough, George Washington. Probably a few smaller ones up in the Bronx that I'm forgetting. Then there is the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, the Queens Midtown Tunnel. Others? Oh, and there are countless ferries crossing the Hudson River and the East River. Plus the Staten Island Ferry. And some heliports. I've forgotten half of it, since I haven't lived there in 40+ years. And my names are probably obsolete. I know that one of those structures was renamed after Ed Koch, but probably nobody in NYC uses that name. You can certainly enumerate them all if you tried hard enough. So, definitely "a limited set of entry points". It would be more informative to say "a large and very busy set of entry points".

by TillE 10y ago

djsumdog 10y ago

We won't know the real truth behind Lockerbie until a good century after America goes the way of Rome, but I'm sure once nationalism leaves the scene there will be a lot of contention about it. Furthermore the same can be said about 9/11. Once could make a legitimate argument that over half of airplane related criminal acts are related directly to US government intervention. But of course, if that's true, most of the evidence is either _lost_ or destroyed.

sctb 10y ago
This comment violates the HN guidelines. Please don't derail the discussion by introducing flamewar topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

chimeracoder 10y ago

> It's a lot harder to murder hundreds of people with a bomb elsewhere Airport security lines would be an obvious target with hundreds of people (at the larger terminals). Major cities are full of areas where hundreds of people routinely gather within a small radius. Airplanes aren't special.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

> It's a lot harder to murder hundreds of people with a bomb elsewhere Not really. Honestly the best places are probably TSA checkpoints considering how slow and clogged they get. In almost any amusement park during the summer (one of the reasons Disney searches all bags and has undercover security everywhere). Time Square at various times. Yes exploding on a plane likely kills 100+ at once but in all honestly I would imagine it's far easier to do it elsewhere you just might need a tiny bit more explosive material. And now I'm thoroughly depressed. Life is so fragile...well on the scale I care about.

MichaelGG 10y ago
That's not borne out by actual attacks. The recent airport bombings didn't kill as many people as a single airplane. I'm tempted to blame it on incompetence, but we shouldn't deny the facts.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  > That's not borne out by actual attacks. Are you sure? The majority of largest terrorist attacks, casualty wise, didn't even involve a plane except for September 11th attacks (obviously several did but not the majority) [1]. > The recent airport bombings didn't kill as many people as a single airplane. I'm tempted to blame it on incompetence, but we shouldn't deny the facts. That airport bombing was very different than the suggested TSA security line hypothetical as the airports in Istanbul work fundamentally different (I addressed in the other comment). What facts am I denying? I always try to base my opinion around only facts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_violent_events_by_death_toll#Terrorist_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_and_other_viol...
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Sorry not accusing you of denying facts. I was referring to my suggestion that bombings at security lines were less fatal due to incompetence. As in, I agree that security lines should be high-fatality, but in reality it seems attackers have problems carrying it out. Airplanes might not be targeted as much, but that wiki link shows they are the most deadly per bomb. The other high-fatality bombings were multiple bombs. In the end, my point is that despite the concern for security lines, they don't seem to end up being the massive disaster they could be. Certainly they are not worse than the airplane attacks they seek to prevent, which is the main point.
    - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
      Fair enough
  - deleted 10y ago

koenigdavidmj 10y ago

What about particularly dense urban areas? I'm sure NYC would be perfectly willing to have the right to search all people entering the city (or at least Manhattan, which has a limited set of entry points, so it's easier to check). The Democrats could be convinced with a gun violence argument ("all those guns used to come from nearby states with more lax gun laws, but now we can stop them!"), and the Republicans of course would be satisfied with a bit of talk about terrorism.

CarpetBench 10y ago
> I'm sure NYC would be perfectly willing to have the right to search all people entering the city (or at least Manhattan... Uh absolutely not. Nobody who lives in the city would vote for that, ESPECIALLY if it was just for Manhattan (since most people in Manhattan during the day don't live there). NYC transit, much of the time, is a relatively well-oiled machine and introducing a huge delay like that would make the city explode in anger. NYPD already has some "checkpoints" setup outside of certain subway entrances where they "randomly" (you can probably guess how random it is) pull people off to check their baggage. Rarely do they check more than 1/1000 people entering the subway (and that's being extremely generous, it's probably far less frequent), because there might literally be a riot if they backed up an entire subway station checking everyone entering.
- PhantomGremlin 10y ago
  NYC transit, much of the time, is a relatively well-oiled machine and introducing a huge delay like that would make the city explode in anger. Yeah, I don't think the guy you replied to is familiar with Manhattan at all, otherwise he wouldn't have said "a limited set of entry points". I just counted 16 different subway lines entering Manhattan. And that's only counting "1" for each line the MTA map groups together. And that's not counting the PATH trains. Or all the trains that come into Penn Station. Or all the trains that come into Grand Central. Then there are the bridges. Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburgh, 59th street, Triborough, George Washington. Probably a few smaller ones up in the Bronx that I'm forgetting. Then there is the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, the Queens Midtown Tunnel. Others? Oh, and there are countless ferries crossing the Hudson River and the East River. Plus the Staten Island Ferry. And some heliports. I've forgotten half of it, since I haven't lived there in 40+ years. And my names are probably obsolete. I know that one of those structures was renamed after Ed Koch, but probably nobody in NYC uses that name. You can certainly enumerate them all if you tried hard enough. So, definitely "a limited set of entry points". It would be more informative to say "a large and very busy set of entry points".