4 ms·
Yes, but trains may be a little safer from that perspective. They have hundreds of doors instead of just two, and each door lead to the land, not to a free fall
by bnegreve 8y ago
Yes, but trains may be a little safer from that perspective. They have hundreds of doors instead of just two, and each door lead to the land, not to a free fall.
So you can threat the driver, but I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops.
Now I agree that terrorist can be creative sometimes
- Someone 8y ago”I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops.” Stop the train between stations, in an area with free views all around for at least a hundred meters, put two terrorists with a gun and night vision devices on each end of the train, one on each side. Because of the height of the step down to the track, many people would already find it difficult getting out of the train if there is no platform, even if they wouldn’t be shot at.
- bnegreve 8y agoYou can hijack a plane with two people in the cockpit. People won't go out and police won't get in for obvious reasons. With trains, you need an army of guys spread along the train to shoot at people trying to get out. Each one of this guy can be neutralized by the police from outside or even or passengers from the inside (see thalys train attack). I'm not saying it's impossible but it certainly qualifies as more difficult. Well anyway, trains are more comfortable. That's the main reason why I like them better.
- Someone 8y agoI’m not claiming trains are the perfect hijacking target, but they aren’t that bad, either: 1. I doubt you’ll need an army. Chances are most of the passengers will be too scared to even try running away. 2. You probably can afford to lose a few of the most adventurous passengers. 3. In many trains, it isn’t that hard to lock the doors using chain locks you bring in. You can even (partly) do that before your hijack starts. 4. If you don’t start shooting hostages, the police won’t go in for the obvious reason that they want to keep the hostages alive. From the viewpoint of a terrorist big disadvantage of hijacking a train is that you give up leaving the scene alive and free (airplanes used to have that as a possibility, as you could negotiate for kerosine and fly to a friendly country)
- landryraccoon 8y agoThe US is a little unusual in that we don’t have a ton of trains already. Europe and Asia have tons of passenger trains that millions of people ride on every day. Why do you think the risk is that great? These trains already exist and they don’t get hijacked all the time. There are reasons to be against trains I suppose but fear of terrorism seems very farfetched. There are much softer targets around. It’s not like a train is a force multiplier like a plane is, you can’t take it anywhere.
- Someone 8y ago”Why do you think the risk is that great?” Where do you get the impression I do? I just replied to a remark ”I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops” with an IMO (but not in HN’s opinion, it seems) reasonable scenario.
- Symbiote 8y agoWhat would anyone do this for? If they just want to kill people, they can shoot them at any public event.
- Someone 8y agoFor what many terrorists want (at least historically, in the 1979s): attention for their cause.
- landryraccoon 8y agoThey're on the ground. The police, SWAT team, Navy Seals, plus whatever other special forces / artillery would have the terrorists totally surrounded. An airplane is a way more vulnerable target than a train is.
- Someone 8y agoHijacked airplanes typically end up on the ground, surrounded by police, SWAT team, Navy Seals, plus whatever etc. Hijacking historically wasn’t primarily aimed at killing people.