4 ms·
> But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane. Unless we have measures to prevent them from getting on the pla
by laureny 13y ago
> But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane.
Unless we have measures to prevent them from getting on the plane in the first place, and since no bombs have been going off on a plane for quite a while, isn't that a sign that the security measures are working?
- greedo 13y agoYou can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deterred. If the first was true, both the Bush admin and the Obama admin would be touting it as a success. If these "numerous" bombers are being deterred, you can't point to the security measures as the deterrent. It might be the NSA, CIA, or other organizations (US and other) that would be disrupting their plans. Otherwise it's back to the magic rock that keeps tigers away.
- laureny 13y ago> You can't point to this as a success of the security measures. First, it implies that there are a significant number of bombers who are either captured or deterred. If the first was true, both the Bush admin and the Obama admin would be touting it as a success. If these "numerous" bombers are being deterred, you can't point to the security measures as the deterrent. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you are making a claim without backing it up.
- girvo 13y agoBecause while intuitively it makes "sense", there is no evidence to show that the possible correlation is instead direct causation.
- baddox 13y agoIf the TSA killed every 1000th passenger, and no bombs went off on planes, would that be a sign that this measure is working?