4 ms·

You 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 s

You 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 ago
I’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 ago
  The 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.

Someone 8y ago

I’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 ago
The 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.