4 ms·

I think what most people are forgetting is the reason for such measures on flights. An hijacked flight is very different from other hijaking/terrorist situatio

I think what most people are forgetting is the reason for such measures on flights. An hijacked flight is very different from other hijaking/terrorist situations. It leaves you with almost no options except maybe to shoot it down. There is absolutely no other tactical moves that can be made. The same cannot be said for similar attacks on theaters/schools etc. A flight is also a moving threat that requires swift response, and it can strike (when used as a weapon) over quite a large area (In terms of targets it may choose). Now, if we as this article suggests remove all security to get on flights. As someone planning such an incident, i.e. pull out a gun or other random acts of terror; It would follow that getting on a flight to do such a thing would be the best move. You literally have access to 200+ people with no where to run in a confined area, with no security. The reason flights are given security vs other places such as theaters etc is not some random act. It is cause of the specific threats that are posed by hijacked flights/weapons on flights that are fundamentally different from other locations. (How fast would the cops get to someone who starts firing at people in any city with such high population density?, now compare that with what happens in a flight, you have no options, and once it starts you practically write off the people who are on the flight because you have no chance of saving them)

ealexhudson 13y ago
Of course there are other tactical options. All big jets have fly-by-wire systems that could easily be remotely commanded. There's no reason why hijackers should be given control of the aircraft; indeed at this point the planes themselves could probably be programmed to refuse to point at the ground in urban areas outside of a glide path. That leaves them with the option of blowing up the aircraft at inconvenient places. That's a significantly tough and narrow plan of attack.
- nicomoto1 13y ago
  Being given control of the aircraft is secondary. You've condemned 200 odd people to death cause of one person on the flight. A small bomb, any thing to disrupt the flight will do that. (This is very easy as opposed to going to a theater or other urban crowded locations and staying alive long enough to take out that many people). The point being your only option is to lose everyone on the plane. Is that a casualty you're willing to accept. Security works by deterrence. If every time someone starts shooting in theaters and schools, the casualty is upwards of 200, its going to be a more viable option. Its a question of the cost of doing something vs the damage it causes. the inherent nature of flights (Since they fly), is that it takes relatively less effort to get one to crash. And it terms of preparation (in this ideal scenario as per this article), one guy just has to walk into a plane with items you get in your local store (propane maybe?). Im not an expert on this, but i just feel the effort required is just ridiculously easy if there is going to be no one to keep a tab on what you carry/have access to on a flight.

ealexhudson 13y ago

Of course there are other tactical options. All big jets have fly-by-wire systems that could easily be remotely commanded. There's no reason why hijackers should be given control of the aircraft; indeed at this point the planes themselves could probably be programmed to refuse to point at the ground in urban areas outside of a glide path. That leaves them with the option of blowing up the aircraft at inconvenient places. That's a significantly tough and narrow plan of attack.

nicomoto1 13y ago
Being given control of the aircraft is secondary. You've condemned 200 odd people to death cause of one person on the flight. A small bomb, any thing to disrupt the flight will do that. (This is very easy as opposed to going to a theater or other urban crowded locations and staying alive long enough to take out that many people). The point being your only option is to lose everyone on the plane. Is that a casualty you're willing to accept. Security works by deterrence. If every time someone starts shooting in theaters and schools, the casualty is upwards of 200, its going to be a more viable option. Its a question of the cost of doing something vs the damage it causes. the inherent nature of flights (Since they fly), is that it takes relatively less effort to get one to crash. And it terms of preparation (in this ideal scenario as per this article), one guy just has to walk into a plane with items you get in your local store (propane maybe?). Im not an expert on this, but i just feel the effort required is just ridiculously easy if there is going to be no one to keep a tab on what you carry/have access to on a flight.