4 ms·

If a terrorist were actually strategic about maximizing damage they would always inflict far greater harm and never be stopped. You can fit probably 50lbs of ta

If a terrorist were actually strategic about maximizing damage they would always inflict far greater harm and never be stopped. You can fit probably 50lbs of tannerite (ammonium nitrate and some aluminum) and ball bearings into a large suitcase and walk into any airport lobby in the world. They would never need to make it past a single layer of security to reach a line with hundreds of people in close proximity. But then you could also do this with trains, large hotels during business conferences, etc. Any security expert will tell you that real evil isn't something you can protect people from. Fortunately, 99.9% of people aren't genuinely evil. Although, it does make it clear that these security measures aren't about us, they're about protecting expensive property and reducing their liability once we get into that property.

LatteLazy 6y ago
Do you have an example of a motivated terrorist killing (say) 300 people with a single bomb in a well chosen crowd? I can't find one. The example I quote about is around 14 people per bomb for a very well chosen target for quite large devices. For comparison, a small bomb on a near full 747 would kill 450 (plus people on the ground). I think blowing up planes is just a really really efficient way to kill people compared to blowing up almost any other grouping of people... >Fortunately, 99.9% of people aren't genuinely evil. Very true. And those that are are generally more interested in making headlines than setting records for casualty numbers luckily...
- Proziam 6y ago
  [0] Not that long ago someone put a bomb in a truck and killed 300+ in Mogadishu. The article is horrific, however. They completely discount the possibility for planning, and they use terms like 'military grade' to make the explosive seem more technologically advanced than it would ever need to be. This was far from the Guardian's best work. EDIT - [1] Added another article (about another attack) just to show that this is a recurring event, and because the first article was of poor quality. > I think blowing up planes is just a really really efficient way to kill people compared to blowing up almost any other grouping of people... It would be if you could get onto the plane every time, and if you were willing to die. Once the terrorist surrenders their bags to be scanned the attack is no longer under their control. And then there's the suicide aspect. If it's as easy as walking in, a single terrorist can repeat their attack many times over. If they have to get on the plane, it's almost certainly going to be with small device that they take with them directly rather than a bag under the plane. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mogadishu-kills-people-somalia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mog... [1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/21/asia/sri-lanka-explosions/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/21/asia/sri-lanka-explosions/ind...

LatteLazy 6y ago

Do you have an example of a motivated terrorist killing (say) 300 people with a single bomb in a well chosen crowd? I can't find one. The example I quote about is around 14 people per bomb for a very well chosen target for quite large devices. For comparison, a small bomb on a near full 747 would kill 450 (plus people on the ground). I think blowing up planes is just a really really efficient way to kill people compared to blowing up almost any other grouping of people... >Fortunately, 99.9% of people aren't genuinely evil. Very true. And those that are are generally more interested in making headlines than setting records for casualty numbers luckily...

Proziam 6y ago
[0] Not that long ago someone put a bomb in a truck and killed 300+ in Mogadishu. The article is horrific, however. They completely discount the possibility for planning, and they use terms like 'military grade' to make the explosive seem more technologically advanced than it would ever need to be. This was far from the Guardian's best work. EDIT - [1] Added another article (about another attack) just to show that this is a recurring event, and because the first article was of poor quality. > I think blowing up planes is just a really really efficient way to kill people compared to blowing up almost any other grouping of people... It would be if you could get onto the plane every time, and if you were willing to die. Once the terrorist surrenders their bags to be scanned the attack is no longer under their control. And then there's the suicide aspect. If it's as easy as walking in, a single terrorist can repeat their attack many times over. If they have to get on the plane, it's almost certainly going to be with small device that they take with them directly rather than a bag under the plane. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mogadishu-kills-people-somalia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mog... [1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/21/asia/sri-lanka-explosions/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/21/asia/sri-lanka-explosions/ind...