3 ms·

Won't asking people to take a swig solve a bunch of those issues?

by wbl 9mo ago

jrockway 9mo ago
People travel with liquids they don't intend to eat. Shampoo and all that. There is also nothing that precludes explosives from being non-toxic. Presumably your demise is near if you are carrying explosives through security. What do you care about heavy metal poisoning at that point?
- chipsrafferty 9mo ago
  But also you can fill up a water bottle after security. Wouldn't it be fairly easy to make a pen or similar innocuous item out of sodium, and drop it in a bottle of water to make an explosion? My point is that security can never be strict enough to catch someone who's truly motivated and funded, without making it impossible to admit people at a reasonable pace, and the current rules don't really help with that except for cutting down on the riff raff terrorists. But maybe those are more common than a trained professional with high tech weapons, I don't know.
  - jandrewrogers 9mo ago
    FWIW, sodium in water is such a pathetic explosion that it would mostly be an embarrassment for the would-be bomber. It wouldn’t do any meaningful damage. An explosion with real gravitas is far more difficult to execute than people imagine. (see also: people that think ANFO is a viable explosive) This goes a long way in explaining why truly destructive bombings are rare.
    - WalterBright 9mo ago
      Airliners are also pretty robust against damage. Although they are not designed to resist explosions, everything is redundant. This robustness is why fighters in WW2 used cannons for guns. Poking a hole in the side won't do anything.
      - Zak 9mo ago
        The USA mostly used .50 caliber machine guns, usually with a mix of ammunition including incendiary bullets so that a hole in a fuel tank meant a large fire. Fighters from the other major combatants usually had 20mm autocannons in addition to smaller machine guns.
        WalterBright 9mo ago
        Allied fighters were also equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks, so a hit doesn't automatically mean it burns. I don't have any stats on it, but they wouldn't have added the self-sealing if it didn't improve the survivability. The sensitive part for a P-51 was the cooling system. Any hit on that, and you're done. B-17s famously endured a lot of battle damage. The usual vector of attack on them was head on, and they aimed for the cockpit. (Attacks on fighters usually aimed for the cockpit, too.) I know that tracers were used in WW1 to set observation balloons (filled with hydrogen) afire. Tracers in WW2 were used so the gunner could direct his aim. I haven't read that they were intended for the fuel tanks, but that could be true. 109's would frequently sneak up from the rear, and if the tail gunner was not paying attention, it was an easy kill. My dad (B17 navigator) said the tail gunners, once they spotted a 109, would fire a few rounds of tracers long before the 109 was in range - just to let the pilot know they were awake and aware. It usually meant the 109 would veer off.
        Zak 9mo ago
        Incendiary ammunition is distinct from tracer, though some projectiles have both functions, and tracers have a chance of causing a fire. Incendiary projectiles usually ignite or explode after impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_ammunition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_ammunition
    - Zak 9mo ago
      ANFO is certainly a viable explosive for a truck bomb, e.g. Oklahoma City.
  - closewith 9mo ago
    > My point is that security can never be strict enough to catch someone who's truly motivated and funded, without making it impossible to admit people at a reasonable pace, and the current rules don't really help with that except for cutting down on the riff raff terrorists. This is the classic HN developer arrogance and oversimplification, but let's accept this as true for argument's sake. It turns out that "riff raff terrorists" are the only ones we needed to stop as there's been no successful bombings of Western airlines in 25 years, and there have been foiled attempts. The existence of master locksmiths (and door breaching charges) doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your door at night.
    - WalterBright 9mo ago
      And nobody's going to fall for that "open the cockpit door or I kill the flight attendant" again.
    - troupo 9mo ago
      > The existence of master locksmiths (and door breaching charges) doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your door at night. The TSA checkpoints are the equivalent of moving all your belongings onto the lawn, and then locking the door. Why bother with the plane when now you have potentialy a magnitude more people in the queue to TSA?
    - sgjohnson 9mo ago
      > and there have been foiled attempts. have there?
      - amiga386 9mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Failed_airliner_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Failed_airliner_bombi... -> 2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2... 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl... ... which is what we're discussing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_repercussions_due_to_the_2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_repercussions_due_to_... 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_transatlantic_aircraft_bomb_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_transatlantic_aircraft_bo... 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Australian_aeroplane_bomb_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Australian_aeroplane_bomb...
jandrewrogers 9mo ago
This was done! It created terrible publicity incidents like the TSA forcing women to drink their own breast milk to prove it was safe. And not all liquids subject to this are things a person should swig even if they aren’t explosives. The extremely negative PR rightly stopped this practice.
- bdavbdav 9mo ago
  Is that practice not really common? I’ve seen that done as a matter of course on lots of international airports with baby food / liquid and no one seems to get too fussed about it.

Won't asking people to take a swig solve a bunch of those issues?

by wbl 9mo ago

Won't asking people to take a swig solve a bunch of those issues?

People travel with liquids they don't intend to eat. Shampoo and all that. There is also nothing that precludes explosives from being non-toxic. Presumably your demise is near if you are carrying explosives through security. What do you care about heavy metal poisoning at that point?

chipsrafferty 9mo ago
But also you can fill up a water bottle after security. Wouldn't it be fairly easy to make a pen or similar innocuous item out of sodium, and drop it in a bottle of water to make an explosion? My point is that security can never be strict enough to catch someone who's truly motivated and funded, without making it impossible to admit people at a reasonable pace, and the current rules don't really help with that except for cutting down on the riff raff terrorists. But maybe those are more common than a trained professional with high tech weapons, I don't know.
- jandrewrogers 9mo ago
  FWIW, sodium in water is such a pathetic explosion that it would mostly be an embarrassment for the would-be bomber. It wouldn’t do any meaningful damage. An explosion with real gravitas is far more difficult to execute than people imagine. (see also: people that think ANFO is a viable explosive) This goes a long way in explaining why truly destructive bombings are rare.
  - WalterBright 9mo ago
    Airliners are also pretty robust against damage. Although they are not designed to resist explosions, everything is redundant. This robustness is why fighters in WW2 used cannons for guns. Poking a hole in the side won't do anything.
    - Zak 9mo ago
      The USA mostly used .50 caliber machine guns, usually with a mix of ammunition including incendiary bullets so that a hole in a fuel tank meant a large fire. Fighters from the other major combatants usually had 20mm autocannons in addition to smaller machine guns.
      - WalterBright 9mo ago
        Allied fighters were also equipped with self-sealing fuel tanks, so a hit doesn't automatically mean it burns. I don't have any stats on it, but they wouldn't have added the self-sealing if it didn't improve the survivability. The sensitive part for a P-51 was the cooling system. Any hit on that, and you're done. B-17s famously endured a lot of battle damage. The usual vector of attack on them was head on, and they aimed for the cockpit. (Attacks on fighters usually aimed for the cockpit, too.) I know that tracers were used in WW1 to set observation balloons (filled with hydrogen) afire. Tracers in WW2 were used so the gunner could direct his aim. I haven't read that they were intended for the fuel tanks, but that could be true. 109's would frequently sneak up from the rear, and if the tail gunner was not paying attention, it was an easy kill. My dad (B17 navigator) said the tail gunners, once they spotted a 109, would fire a few rounds of tracers long before the 109 was in range - just to let the pilot know they were awake and aware. It usually meant the 109 would veer off.
        Zak 9mo ago
        Incendiary ammunition is distinct from tracer, though some projectiles have both functions, and tracers have a chance of causing a fire. Incendiary projectiles usually ignite or explode after impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_ammunition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_ammunition
  - Zak 9mo ago
    ANFO is certainly a viable explosive for a truck bomb, e.g. Oklahoma City.
- closewith 9mo ago
  > My point is that security can never be strict enough to catch someone who's truly motivated and funded, without making it impossible to admit people at a reasonable pace, and the current rules don't really help with that except for cutting down on the riff raff terrorists. This is the classic HN developer arrogance and oversimplification, but let's accept this as true for argument's sake. It turns out that "riff raff terrorists" are the only ones we needed to stop as there's been no successful bombings of Western airlines in 25 years, and there have been foiled attempts. The existence of master locksmiths (and door breaching charges) doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your door at night.
  - WalterBright 9mo ago
    And nobody's going to fall for that "open the cockpit door or I kill the flight attendant" again.
  - troupo 9mo ago
    > The existence of master locksmiths (and door breaching charges) doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your door at night. The TSA checkpoints are the equivalent of moving all your belongings onto the lawn, and then locking the door. Why bother with the plane when now you have potentialy a magnitude more people in the queue to TSA?
  - sgjohnson 9mo ago
    > and there have been foiled attempts. have there?
    - amiga386 9mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Failed_airliner_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Failed_airliner_bombi... -> 2001: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2001) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_63_(2... 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_pl... ... which is what we're discussing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_repercussions_due_to_the_2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_repercussions_due_to_... 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_253 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_transatlantic_aircraft_bomb_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_transatlantic_aircraft_bo... 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159 2017: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Australian_aeroplane_bomb_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Australian_aeroplane_bomb...

jandrewrogers 9mo ago

This was done! It created terrible publicity incidents like the TSA forcing women to drink their own breast milk to prove it was safe. And not all liquids subject to this are things a person should swig even if they aren’t explosives. The extremely negative PR rightly stopped this practice.

bdavbdav 9mo ago
Is that practice not really common? I’ve seen that done as a matter of course on lots of international airports with baby food / liquid and no one seems to get too fussed about it.