5 ms·

> In any case it's also good military thinking. Or more likely enemies see it as posturing and strike full force, thinking they can pierce the superficial veil

> In any case it's also good military thinking. Or more likely enemies see it as posturing and strike full force, thinking they can pierce the superficial veil of technological supremacy. Come on, security theater is bullshit. How many people actually think the TSA does anything useful? If anything it lulls people into a false sense of safety, making us weaker. If our enemies are so easily deterred that our appearance matters more than our capability, then they are not enemies worth taking seriously. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa-doesnt-work-and-maybe-it-doesnt-matter/394673/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/the-tsa... https://www.heritage.org/transportation/commentary/heres-how-bad-the-tsa-failing-airport-security-its-time-privatization https://www.heritage.org/transportation/commentary/heres-how...

wtvanhest 6y ago
Hijackings were extremely common prior to flight security. TSA was another level, that was extremely frustrating throughout the 2000s, but at a minimum it prevents wildly unstable people from boarding with weapons Check out this list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  I wrote a rebuttal with sources but on second thought, I think you make a good point. I should look at the data more and revisit my stance.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > at a minimum it prevents wildly unstable people from boarding with weapons The TSA reliably fails penetration tests; they miss between 70% and 95% of them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa-misses-70-of-fake-weapons-but-thats-an-improvement/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa... What's likely caused hijackings to fall off a cliff is a) reinforced cockpit doors and b) the knowledge of crew and passengers that the hijackers might be homicidal. Pre-9/11, advice was to cooperate, get the plane on the ground, and negotiate/assault, with pretty good overall results for the passengers. That is... not the advice today.
  - wtvanhest 6y ago
    Reinforced cockpit doors were not implemented on planes until around 2002. Meanwhile, hijackings fell dramatically after only basic fight security that was implemented nearly 20 years before that.
- toyg 6y ago
  Common-er, yes; “extremely” seems a bit excessive. It’s not like there was a hijack a day. And as others said, what stopped the trend is more likely to be the fact that passengers’ cooperation is now impossible.
- Zigurd 6y ago
  There are more-plausible theories of why hijackings are now rare. One of the most plausible is that armored cockpit doors and the policy that they should never be opened during a hijacking has put hijackers out of business. TSA security checkpoints are a gift to the business models for autonomous vehicles. If you can have your car do the driving for you, an overnight car trip will be a good alternative to flights under 500 miles ad possibly all short-haul flights in the US.
- kens 6y ago
  I don't think people realize just how common hijackings were in the early 1970s, with sometimes two hijackings on the same day. (Between 1968 and 1972 there were over 130 US hijackings.) But after a hijacker threatened to crash a plane into a nuclear reactor in 1972, the FAA introduced passenger screening and metal detectors. Before that, there was basically no security. An interesting article: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-egyptair https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-e...
anonisko 6y ago
It's not complete bullshit. Against other sophisticated actors, yeah, it's bullshit. But posturing and intimidation is important to keep less sophisticated actors in check.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  Who are the less sophisticated actors willing to attack a military based solely on appearance of 'not looking intimidating?' We're talking about a fighter jet, not a security guard.
  - anonisko 6y ago
    I'd see it as more about PR. If poor desperate people regularly see these kinds of badass weapons that a foreign power has, it's just going to be that much harder to recruit for organizations that violently resist oppression, because the individuals you need are fearful and demoralized. Then you need crazy things like religious indoctrination that promises rewards in heaven for fighting such an unassailable power.
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      I guess you could make the argument the PR is effective against idiots. My point is letting the PR call the shots objectively makes us weaker (the F-35 program is a clusterfuck), so it's harming us against enemies that aren't idiots. I'm pretty sure China loves the F-35 program because they know it's an enormous weakness in the US military. But yeah, you have a point. Idiots can be harmful too, and they should also be considered as potential threats.
HPsquared 6y ago
Human factors are real.
landryraccoon 6y ago
One angle you're missing is the effect appearances have on your own soldiers, not the enemy. Battles and wars can be lost because of poor morale. Maintaining high morale and combat readiness in your very-human fighting force is critical to achieving victory. If soldiers feel happier and more ready to fight with cool looking equipment rather than shoddy looking gear, then it's easily a good investment.

wtvanhest 6y ago

Hijackings were extremely common prior to flight security. TSA was another level, that was extremely frustrating throughout the 2000s, but at a minimum it prevents wildly unstable people from boarding with weapons Check out this list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

Judgmentality 6y ago
I wrote a rebuttal with sources but on second thought, I think you make a good point. I should look at the data more and revisit my stance.
ceejayoz 6y ago
> at a minimum it prevents wildly unstable people from boarding with weapons The TSA reliably fails penetration tests; they miss between 70% and 95% of them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa-misses-70-of-fake-weapons-but-thats-an-improvement/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2017/11/09/tsa... What's likely caused hijackings to fall off a cliff is a) reinforced cockpit doors and b) the knowledge of crew and passengers that the hijackers might be homicidal. Pre-9/11, advice was to cooperate, get the plane on the ground, and negotiate/assault, with pretty good overall results for the passengers. That is... not the advice today.
- wtvanhest 6y ago
  Reinforced cockpit doors were not implemented on planes until around 2002. Meanwhile, hijackings fell dramatically after only basic fight security that was implemented nearly 20 years before that.
toyg 6y ago
Common-er, yes; “extremely” seems a bit excessive. It’s not like there was a hijack a day. And as others said, what stopped the trend is more likely to be the fact that passengers’ cooperation is now impossible.
Zigurd 6y ago
There are more-plausible theories of why hijackings are now rare. One of the most plausible is that armored cockpit doors and the policy that they should never be opened during a hijacking has put hijackers out of business. TSA security checkpoints are a gift to the business models for autonomous vehicles. If you can have your car do the driving for you, an overnight car trip will be a good alternative to flights under 500 miles ad possibly all short-haul flights in the US.
kens 6y ago
I don't think people realize just how common hijackings were in the early 1970s, with sometimes two hijackings on the same day. (Between 1968 and 1972 there were over 130 US hijackings.) But after a hijacker threatened to crash a plane into a nuclear reactor in 1972, the FAA introduced passenger screening and metal detectors. Before that, there was basically no security. An interesting article: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-egyptair https://www.vox.com/2016/3/29/11326472/hijacking-airplanes-e...

anonisko 6y ago

It's not complete bullshit. Against other sophisticated actors, yeah, it's bullshit. But posturing and intimidation is important to keep less sophisticated actors in check.

Judgmentality 6y ago
Who are the less sophisticated actors willing to attack a military based solely on appearance of 'not looking intimidating?' We're talking about a fighter jet, not a security guard.
- anonisko 6y ago
  I'd see it as more about PR. If poor desperate people regularly see these kinds of badass weapons that a foreign power has, it's just going to be that much harder to recruit for organizations that violently resist oppression, because the individuals you need are fearful and demoralized. Then you need crazy things like religious indoctrination that promises rewards in heaven for fighting such an unassailable power.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    I guess you could make the argument the PR is effective against idiots. My point is letting the PR call the shots objectively makes us weaker (the F-35 program is a clusterfuck), so it's harming us against enemies that aren't idiots. I'm pretty sure China loves the F-35 program because they know it's an enormous weakness in the US military. But yeah, you have a point. Idiots can be harmful too, and they should also be considered as potential threats.

HPsquared 6y ago

Human factors are real.

landryraccoon 6y ago

One angle you're missing is the effect appearances have on your own soldiers, not the enemy. Battles and wars can be lost because of poor morale. Maintaining high morale and combat readiness in your very-human fighting force is critical to achieving victory. If soldiers feel happier and more ready to fight with cool looking equipment rather than shoddy looking gear, then it's easily a good investment.