3 ms·
Other forms of transport, such as trains, don't have even a tiny fraction of the level of security that planes have, and if anything are a more effective terror
by prof_hobart 13y ago
Other forms of transport, such as trains, don't have even a tiny fraction of the level of security that planes have, and if anything are a more effective terror target than a bomb on a plane (I would say that the terrorists got far more publicity out of the 7/7 bombings in London than they did out of Lockerbie) - I strolled around two of the busiest stations in London for a couple of hours on Saturday, and saw a single sniffer dog occasionally checking out someone's bag, and even that was far more than I normally see.
Yet we don't see train bombs on a regular basis.
So why would planes be vastly different if the level of security was ramped down?
- mgpetkov 13y agoI was wandering the same and came to conclusion that these security measures are not for our safety but the safety of our ruling elite. How often can you see a prime minister in a subway? But they often take commercial flights. And they never face such humiliating checks as we do. P.S Is there anybody who can explain me why 5x100ml bottles are safer than one 0.5l?
- prof_hobart 13y agoI'm not sure that's even the case. The richest/most powerful will travel by private jet anyway, and many of the next tier of politicians/businessmen regularly travel by train (in first class of course) in the UK.
- prawn 13y agoSafety of their commercial investments. As has been said, the top tier fly privately.