3 ms·

> One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by the difficulty and no longer try. Well, let me know if you actually get around to

> One could make the counter argument that some terrorists are discouraged by the difficulty and no longer try. Well, let me know if you actually get around to making the argument. In the meantime, consider the basic economics of an attack as laid out by someone else: If the other passengers on the flight realise that you're up to something, every single one of them has a clear motive to take you on in the fight to the death. Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11. > For example, how many plane bombings have their been since Lockerbie? None. Does that mean that we should stop inspecting luggage? Probably not. Good thing, then, that the suggestion on the table is a return to pre-9/11 security, not abolishing it. EDIT: pre-9/11 security, plus the few things we've realised actually makes sense - such as reinforced, locking cockpit doors.

codex 14y ago
Blowing up a plane by embedding a bomb in a body cavity is still plenty easy post 9/11. The terrorist need only head into the restroom and detonate the bomb under the cover of privacy. Bomb making technology and the willingness to be martyred in a plane attack have increased since 9/11. This is the type of attack that full body scanners attempt to prevent. EDIT: Witness new body cavity scanners on the horizon: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-finds-explosives-inside-body-cavities/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-fi...
- mseebach 14y ago
  No, millimeter-wave scanners do not penetrate the skin, so they're ineffective against that type of attack.
ScottBurson 14y ago
> Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11. Yes. It's important to remember that pre-9/11, the standard expectation was that in a hijacking, passengers would be hostages, not victims. As such, people were specifically instructed not to intervene. That's clearly out the window now.

codex 14y ago

Blowing up a plane by embedding a bomb in a body cavity is still plenty easy post 9/11. The terrorist need only head into the restroom and detonate the bomb under the cover of privacy. Bomb making technology and the willingness to be martyred in a plane attack have increased since 9/11. This is the type of attack that full body scanners attempt to prevent. EDIT: Witness new body cavity scanners on the horizon: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-finds-explosives-inside-body-cavities/ http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/01/crack-new-scanner-fi...

mseebach 14y ago
No, millimeter-wave scanners do not penetrate the skin, so they're ineffective against that type of attack.

ScottBurson 14y ago

> Hi-jacking a plane has gotten orders of magnitude more difficult after 9/11. Yes. It's important to remember that pre-9/11, the standard expectation was that in a hijacking, passengers would be hostages, not victims. As such, people were specifically instructed not to intervene. That's clearly out the window now.