4 ms·
I wonder about vulnerability to terrorism here? How easily could a sufficient bomb disable the entire system for weeks or months? I started thinking this way w
by beat 8y ago
I wonder about vulnerability to terrorism here? How easily could a sufficient bomb disable the entire system for weeks or months?
I started thinking this way while standing in line to go through security at JFK. There were about a thousand people milling about, and we hadn't gone through any sort of substantial security yet. And I was thinking that a bomb there could kill more people than taking out an airplane. Yay security theater.
- powvans 8y agoTerrorism is just as much, if not more, about theater than the security that protects against it. Airplanes have been targeted specifically because of the spectacular nature of such an event.
- dpcx 8y agoProbably no different than any other tunnel system anywhere in the world.
- jerf 8y agoIt isn't the airports being protected, it is the airplanes specifically, because airplanes are extremely powerful guided missiles in the wrong hands. Prior to 9/11 even a hijacked plane was still ultimately viewed as an inconvenience at a civilizational level, but post-9/11 it is now recognized that planes are non-trivial weapons of war, the most powerful mobile thing that a civilian can hope to lay hands on. We can quibble with the exact steps taken to protect them, and the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the steps, but ultimately, it isn't really irrational to protect them. Especially if you are any sort of believer in arms control, like, even a little bit; if you think civilians shouldn't be in possession of RPGs, and they shouldn't be easy to get, then you should be OK with some security around planes, because they are way more dangerous than an RPG. It shouldn't be possible to just stroll into an airport and casually pick up a 777.