8 ms·

It recently occurred to me that we can see what "appropriate" security measures would be by looking, even within the US, at what security is in place at sites t

by waqf 15y ago

It recently occurred to me that we can see what "appropriate" security measures would be by looking, even within the US, at what security is in place at sites that are not targets of mass hysteria. For example, subways are generally known to be good terrorist targets. What's the security level on subways? In Boston and NY, it's a bunch of signs saying "if you see something, say something" and "we reserve the right in principle to search your bags (penalty for refusal: leaving the subway)". Intercity trains are sometimes suggested to be terrorist targets (I'm not sure whether they are). What's the security level on Amtrak? Well, I've seen K9 teams at Penn station. I've noticed that K9 teams are a damn sight less intrusive than airport security (and K9 dogs are a damn sight cuter than X-rays).

hugh3 15y ago
Except terrorists aren't any more rational than the general public are (hey, some would argue even less so), and it's the terrorists who keep on trying to target the planes, not the subways, at least in the United States. If there were a series of successful high-casualty subway attacks you'd see insane security on the subway (and let's really hope that doesn't happen). Besides, you just can't kill that many people on the subway. A single bomb on a 747 can kill 400 people... and with a single gun you could kill thousands. (A knife probably isn't good enough any more since folks will fight back, but with an assault rifle you can probably kill anyone who tries.)
- waqf 15y ago
  It seems to me that to make your argument valid you have to be implicitly claiming the following: we're so confident that no fragment of the current Islamist terrorism movement will target subways that we don't need to put in place the security measures that would be necessary if we thought they might; and yet we are so clueless as to when, where and how they plan to attack airplanes that we have to strip-search every 95-year-old/5-year-old/this week's TSA victim stereotype across the entire system.

by waqf 15y ago

hugh3 15y ago

Except terrorists aren't any more rational than the general public are (hey, some would argue even less so), and it's the terrorists who keep on trying to target the planes, not the subways, at least in the United States. If there were a series of successful high-casualty subway attacks you'd see insane security on the subway (and let's really hope that doesn't happen). Besides, you just can't kill that many people on the subway. A single bomb on a 747 can kill 400 people... and with a single gun you could kill thousands. (A knife probably isn't good enough any more since folks will fight back, but with an assault rifle you can probably kill anyone who tries.)

waqf 15y ago
It seems to me that to make your argument valid you have to be implicitly claiming the following: we're so confident that no fragment of the current Islamist terrorism movement will target subways that we don't need to put in place the security measures that would be necessary if we thought they might; and yet we are so clueless as to when, where and how they plan to attack airplanes that we have to strip-search every 95-year-old/5-year-old/this week's TSA victim stereotype across the entire system.