5 ms·

I mean, I think the point of all security is to reduce the total numbers of deaths from terrorist attacks overall, not just per means of transportation. That s

by Aqueous 13y ago

I mean, I think the point of all security is to reduce the total numbers of deaths from terrorist attacks overall, not just per means of transportation. That said, the fact of the matter is that the article doesn't back up its claim that airport security doesn't reduce terrorist casualties overall. Instead it states some bizarre equivalence between the decline in the number of hijackings (-6.9) and the increase in the number of instances of other kinds of terrorism (+6.8). But clearly other forms of terrorism do not cause nearly as much death as plane hijackings do, which for each one numbers in the hundreds, so we could be talking about an integer factor decrease in the number of deaths from terrorist attacks - 4x, 5x, 6x - by merely replacing them with other, less destructive terrorism. After all, the relative destructiveness of a plane hijacking is WHY terrorists do it at all. Suddenly airport security seems to look a lot more effective and a lot more worth it. So obviously they didn't mention casualties at all, since it would undermine the point they are trying to make. Everytime someone complains about security at the airport - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dYS7PcAG4 People are enjoying an incredible privilege being able to fly in the air.

vidarh 13y ago
> But clearly other forms of terrorism do not cause nearly as much death as plane hijackings do, which for each one numbers in the hundreds [citation needed] Some hijackings have caused deaths in the hundreds, namely 9/11 style suicide hijackings. However this is the exception. Even post-9/11. According to the list of hijackings on Wikipedia, of the 21 notable hijackinged since 2000, all the non-9/11 hijackings resulted in 5 victims killed (one accidentally when storming the plane). Note that post-9/11 there appears to have been a substantial increase in instances where the passengers have overpowered the hijackers, presumably out of fear of terrorists planning on killing them all. But overall, even including the WTC deaths, plane hijackings does not appear to have caused more than a few tens of victims on average; exclude the WTC dead, and the number is small - most hijackings in fact appears to have ended without any deaths. And few of the deaths that do happen appears to have been intended by the hijackers (many of the deaths have occurred due to crashes as a result of struggles, or when the planes get stormed by security forces).
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Quite a few planes have been blown up in midair by bombs either carried on or concealed in checked luggage. TSA defends against this kind of attack as well.
  - tadfisher 13y ago
    As do private screening services. How is the TSA better?
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      The article advocates getting rid of all security screenings, TSA or otherwise. We had private screening services at airports before 9/11 and people still had to arrive 1+ hours early, and still complained about the hassle of security screenings.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    True, but that is distinct from hijackings, which was what I responded to, where the assumptions about reasons for hijackings, as opposed to bombings, is completely out of line with how actual hijackers have acted. Anyway, the airplane bomb plots are also quite shocking in light of the TSA: There's been a number of attempts post creation of the TSA that failed only because of the ineptness of the bombers rather than because of the TSA. But this is also a different type of plot: In most airplane bombings, the passengers have had no means of identifying the bomber prior to the explosion. Most of them have been bombs placed under seats or in cargo compartments rather than things like the "shoe bomber". Regardless of the above, I believe that even if you count the dead from all the airplane bomb plots with the hijackings, the average number of dead will not come out all that high compared to other forms of terrorism, unlike what the earlier commenter seemed to assume. Even quite a few of the bombs ends up with no fatalities, or a low number, and only a few of the bombs that have taken out whole planes have been larger planes, most have been smaller regional flights. If you look at Wikipedias list of terrorist incidents, and choose a few years at random, a large number of the largest indicdents you find will be bombs in busy locations, or trains - airplane hijackings or bombs with large number of fatalities are rare occurrences in comparison.

by Aqueous 13y ago

vidarh 13y ago

> But clearly other forms of terrorism do not cause nearly as much death as plane hijackings do, which for each one numbers in the hundreds [citation needed] Some hijackings have caused deaths in the hundreds, namely 9/11 style suicide hijackings. However this is the exception. Even post-9/11. According to the list of hijackings on Wikipedia, of the 21 notable hijackinged since 2000, all the non-9/11 hijackings resulted in 5 victims killed (one accidentally when storming the plane). Note that post-9/11 there appears to have been a substantial increase in instances where the passengers have overpowered the hijackers, presumably out of fear of terrorists planning on killing them all. But overall, even including the WTC deaths, plane hijackings does not appear to have caused more than a few tens of victims on average; exclude the WTC dead, and the number is small - most hijackings in fact appears to have ended without any deaths. And few of the deaths that do happen appears to have been intended by the hijackers (many of the deaths have occurred due to crashes as a result of struggles, or when the planes get stormed by security forces).

snowwrestler 13y ago
Quite a few planes have been blown up in midair by bombs either carried on or concealed in checked luggage. TSA defends against this kind of attack as well.
- tadfisher 13y ago
  As do private screening services. How is the TSA better?
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    The article advocates getting rid of all security screenings, TSA or otherwise. We had private screening services at airports before 9/11 and people still had to arrive 1+ hours early, and still complained about the hassle of security screenings.
- vidarh 13y ago
  True, but that is distinct from hijackings, which was what I responded to, where the assumptions about reasons for hijackings, as opposed to bombings, is completely out of line with how actual hijackers have acted. Anyway, the airplane bomb plots are also quite shocking in light of the TSA: There's been a number of attempts post creation of the TSA that failed only because of the ineptness of the bombers rather than because of the TSA. But this is also a different type of plot: In most airplane bombings, the passengers have had no means of identifying the bomber prior to the explosion. Most of them have been bombs placed under seats or in cargo compartments rather than things like the "shoe bomber". Regardless of the above, I believe that even if you count the dead from all the airplane bomb plots with the hijackings, the average number of dead will not come out all that high compared to other forms of terrorism, unlike what the earlier commenter seemed to assume. Even quite a few of the bombs ends up with no fatalities, or a low number, and only a few of the bombs that have taken out whole planes have been larger planes, most have been smaller regional flights. If you look at Wikipedias list of terrorist incidents, and choose a few years at random, a large number of the largest indicdents you find will be bombs in busy locations, or trains - airplane hijackings or bombs with large number of fatalities are rare occurrences in comparison.