5 ms·

Or, like, any other public transportation option. Busses and trains are not magically immune to explosives. Especially when they have literally zero security

Or, like, any other public transportation option. Busses and trains are not magically immune to explosives. Especially when they have literally zero security and you could easily bring an entire suitcase full of dynamite onto them. The fact is, there just aren't enough people interested in that who have the necessary skills to actually obtain explosives without alerting the FBI to their existence.

jerf 11y ago
If you just want to blow something up there's nothing even all that special about "transportation". Planes are special, because they have an unusual characteristic; taking control of a plane gives you an extremely powerful weapon that you can point anywhere and deliver incredible destruction. There aren't very many other things that two or three people can do that will credibly take down a skyscraper. As it gets harder to deliberately crash a plane and there's ever more drive-by-wire, though, that threat diminishes, and the airport threat diminishes with it. Hypothetically if planes were completely ground-controlled, there would basically be no reason for airport security at all... blowing up planes isn't that intrinsically interesting, really. There'd be a certain amount of inertia to the concept, but that's it. (Yes, I know it used to be done, but post-9/11 I can't help but think that terrorists would view that as a pathetic second-best effort now.) (Though I'd appreciate some serious security around the ground control station, though. Taking over one plane is one thing... taking over "all the planes in the area" or even "all the planes in the sky" would be something else!)
- supergirl 11y ago
  there's also the fact that it's easier to blow up a plane. you need a big bomb to destroy a bus but only a small bomb to make a hole in the plane and kill everyone. and the plane has way more people on it than a bus.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    A hole in a plane's fuselage or wing doesn't mean that everyone dies. You need a lot of power in order to take out a wing. Remember that wings on commercial jetliners are designed to eat an entire disintegrating jet engine in order to protect passengers in the fuselage. Additionally, a jetliner's fuselage can take a VERY large hit at cruising altitudes and speeds [0] and still leave the plane flightworthy. Planes are tougher (and their crews better prepared) than people think they are. [0] http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=4&LLID=20&LLTypeID=2 http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=4&LLID=20&LL... (Be patient. This might take a while to load, but it's worth the wait.)
- netfire 11y ago
  Is the TSA really doing anything to prevent someone from taking control of a plane though? Post-9/11, the cabin door is now shut and locked during most of the flight. I can't imagine a pilot or crew-member would open that door due to a terrorist threat, knowing what we do now (and that they would probably die anyway, if they opened the door)
  - simoncion 11y ago
    The door has also been substantially reinforced. It's probably safe to bet that anyone who tries to break through will not be successful for a variety of reasons. :)
    - spacko 11y ago
      Which again was a reason for why Germanwings pilot Andreas Lubitz could undisturbedly let the plane crash for committing suicide. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525)
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        Ultimately, countermeasures risk becoming attack surfaces. Indira Gandhi was murdered by two of her own bodyguards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi#Assassination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi#Assassination
      - simoncion 11y ago
        Aye. It is. As I understand it, FAA regs require that there be two people in the cockpit at all times. So, the Germanwings tragedy would very likely not have happened in the US.
        spacko 11y ago
        That would be true if at all times meant 100% all times. But I doubt that this rule exists and is assumed to exist to keep the pilot himself from causing harm. But rather to notice medical conditions as soon as possible. So from this psychological stance it is very likely that there will be moments of maybe no more than a minute of someone being alone in the cockpit - realistically.
- MBlume 11y ago
  Pre-9/11 airplane hijackings were a moderate inconvenience. At worst you wind up in Cuba or something and have to find a way to get home. Post-9/11, and by post-9/11 I mean literally hours after the towers were struck, passengers knew better than to comply with hijackers, which is why Flight 93 ditched into the ground.
ehmorris 11y ago
Here at least. Bus bombings are almost common in some places: https://www.google.com/webhp#q=bus+bombing&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/webhp#q=bus+bombing&tbm=nws
pavel_lishin 11y ago
True, however I would imagine that an attack on an airport would hurt more than an attack on a bus or train depot; I'd wager that flights might get grounded until everything is sorted out. Nobody's going to shut down New York's Penn Station if something happens in Chicago or San Francisco.

jerf 11y ago

If you just want to blow something up there's nothing even all that special about "transportation". Planes are special, because they have an unusual characteristic; taking control of a plane gives you an extremely powerful weapon that you can point anywhere and deliver incredible destruction. There aren't very many other things that two or three people can do that will credibly take down a skyscraper. As it gets harder to deliberately crash a plane and there's ever more drive-by-wire, though, that threat diminishes, and the airport threat diminishes with it. Hypothetically if planes were completely ground-controlled, there would basically be no reason for airport security at all... blowing up planes isn't that intrinsically interesting, really. There'd be a certain amount of inertia to the concept, but that's it. (Yes, I know it used to be done, but post-9/11 I can't help but think that terrorists would view that as a pathetic second-best effort now.) (Though I'd appreciate some serious security around the ground control station, though. Taking over one plane is one thing... taking over "all the planes in the area" or even "all the planes in the sky" would be something else!)

supergirl 11y ago
there's also the fact that it's easier to blow up a plane. you need a big bomb to destroy a bus but only a small bomb to make a hole in the plane and kill everyone. and the plane has way more people on it than a bus.
- simoncion 11y ago
  A hole in a plane's fuselage or wing doesn't mean that everyone dies. You need a lot of power in order to take out a wing. Remember that wings on commercial jetliners are designed to eat an entire disintegrating jet engine in order to protect passengers in the fuselage. Additionally, a jetliner's fuselage can take a VERY large hit at cruising altitudes and speeds [0] and still leave the plane flightworthy. Planes are tougher (and their crews better prepared) than people think they are. [0] http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=4&LLID=20&LLTypeID=2 http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/ll_main.cfm?TabID=4&LLID=20&LL... (Be patient. This might take a while to load, but it's worth the wait.)
netfire 11y ago
Is the TSA really doing anything to prevent someone from taking control of a plane though? Post-9/11, the cabin door is now shut and locked during most of the flight. I can't imagine a pilot or crew-member would open that door due to a terrorist threat, knowing what we do now (and that they would probably die anyway, if they opened the door)
- simoncion 11y ago
  The door has also been substantially reinforced. It's probably safe to bet that anyone who tries to break through will not be successful for a variety of reasons. :)
  - spacko 11y ago
    Which again was a reason for why Germanwings pilot Andreas Lubitz could undisturbedly let the plane crash for committing suicide. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525)
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      Ultimately, countermeasures risk becoming attack surfaces. Indira Gandhi was murdered by two of her own bodyguards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi#Assassination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi#Assassination
    - simoncion 11y ago
      Aye. It is. As I understand it, FAA regs require that there be two people in the cockpit at all times. So, the Germanwings tragedy would very likely not have happened in the US.
      - spacko 11y ago
        That would be true if at all times meant 100% all times. But I doubt that this rule exists and is assumed to exist to keep the pilot himself from causing harm. But rather to notice medical conditions as soon as possible. So from this psychological stance it is very likely that there will be moments of maybe no more than a minute of someone being alone in the cockpit - realistically.
MBlume 11y ago
Pre-9/11 airplane hijackings were a moderate inconvenience. At worst you wind up in Cuba or something and have to find a way to get home. Post-9/11, and by post-9/11 I mean literally hours after the towers were struck, passengers knew better than to comply with hijackers, which is why Flight 93 ditched into the ground.

ehmorris 11y ago

Here at least. Bus bombings are almost common in some places: https://www.google.com/webhp#q=bus+bombing&tbm=nws https://www.google.com/webhp#q=bus+bombing&tbm=nws

pavel_lishin 11y ago

True, however I would imagine that an attack on an airport would hurt more than an attack on a bus or train depot; I'd wager that flights might get grounded until everything is sorted out. Nobody's going to shut down New York's Penn Station if something happens in Chicago or San Francisco.