Is anyone else happy to just take their chances with regards to a terrorist attack?

As has been mentioned, the UK was the target of a series of terrorist outrages and attacks for over a century prior to 11/9, and yet it was still quite possibe to board and travel on planes to and from the UK with a minimum of inconvenience.

For example, in 1996 and again in 1998 I travelled from NZ to London with a Swiss Army Knife, a Zippo Lighter, a Walkman, and enough Duty Free Rum to intoxicate an entire frigate crew, and no-one batted an eyelid. I stuck my keys and so on in a tray- which wasn’t X-rayed- walked through the metal detector, and got my stuff back.

Let’s not forget that this was 10 years after Lockerbie. Trying to bring a Walkman onto the plane should have been the sort of thing that would get me hustled off into a windowless room by men in dark suits with sunglasses, but instead it was treated as just another piece of carry-on luggage, of no more concern than a camera or a book.

It’s now been over 5 years since 11/9, and if anything, the security restrictions are getting worse. The reality is that it’s a bloody long way to and from Australia to anywhere except New Zealand or Indonesia, and anyone who’s travelled internationally long-haul will know the unpleasant situation of waking up at some ungodly hour with a serious case of the dry horrors, and wanting a glass of water- but being unable to get the attention of any of the cabin crew. Having a 2l bottle of water handy is invaluable, but because someone might have explosive gel in that bottle, nope, no more bottled water on the flight. Instead, you have to make do with the plane’s supply, which tastes vaguely like it came from a swimming pool, and doesn’t come with a lid, which is somewhat irritating if the plane hits turbulence or whatever and you find yourself with a damp lap.

I’d like to think we as a society will calm down and realise we’re wasting time and money on un-necessary Masterpiece Theatre Of Security productions designed to make it look like The Powers That Be are “Serious” about Terrorism, whilst actually acheiving nothing besides inconveniencing the 99.99999999999% of travellers who would simply like to get from Point A to Point B, perhaps with a stopover in Point C, as fast as possible and with as little hassle as possible.

That’s not to say ALL security precautions are unnecessary- metal detectors and X-ray machines are obviously a good idea and both useful AND important to security. Making some poor backpacker take off his Timberlands and belt instead of just waving the Magic Wand over them? That’s stretching “necessary precautions” it a bit, IMHO.

It’ll be interesting to see if things change when they introduce that Total Recall type scanner that you can just walk through without having to stop or take off your shoes, have your camera bag X-rayed, or put your keys, watch, and cellphone in the little tray for closer scrutiny.

Somehow I doubt it, though.

I’m *pretty *sure you can still take a bottle of water onto the plane, flying out of Tel-Aviv (although I haven’t flown out since 8/2006, so this is hearsay. I could be wrong.)

Just sayin’…

Stop me if you have heard this one already.

Our current security measures are just security theatre. The exist solely to maintain the illusion of threat so that the government can carry on with his war agenda.

oh, you heard that already. ok.

MythBusters did a show on this, confirming my suspicion that Goldfinger is not a documentary.

What separates terrorism from other types of death is fear. Terrorism isn’t just about raw numbers of deaths or statistics: its about fear.

Alot of Americans are more afraid of this sort or terrorism that occurs on planes than any cancer or car accident. The plane is a unique environment in that you cannot leave the plane, and you feel like you are trapped. Terrorists know that if they can shake up the perception on the safety of planes, they can affect more “Americans per death” so to say. It has a much higher impact on the emotions and fears of the public if plane accidents and incidents were to become terrorized than trains, cars, or diseases.

If terrorists were to succeed and film the inside of a car or train being blown up here in America, the public would be in shock. If that were to happen to a plane, there would be even more shock.

If I imagine myself on a train or car, and someone discovers a planted bomb, i would freak out, but then i would know that, the train/car would come to a stop, and at the worst, i could at least jump out of the vehicle or something.

If I imagine myself on a plane, and someone discovers a planted bomb, i would pretty much lose all hope for survival.

That’s because the security staff in Ben Gurion - how shall I say this? - know what the hell they’re doing.

Aircraft security should focus on detecting explosives. That’s it. I don’t give a rat’s ass about nail clippers, screwdrivers, or even knives.

The first hijackings worked because up until then, passengers and crew in aircraft have had it drilled into them that in case of a hijacking, simply do what the hijackers want and let the pros sort it out. That’s no longer the case. Anyone who tries to hijack an airplane with a knife will rapidly find himself facing down a lot of very angry people. And the cockpit door is armored and pilots have been taught to not open them for any reason.

You can never protect a country like the U.S. through defensive means. You can protect one target, and the terrorists can just shift to another. We’ll protect all the airplanes, and then a bomb will go off at a water treatment plant and release thousands of liters of chlorine. So we’ll spend billions to harden every water treatment plant, and a refinery will blow up. In a country full of soft targets, it’s a fool’s game to attempt to protect them all from every possible threat.

The Bush administration screwed up homeland defense from day 1.

To start, I want to express that I am firmly in the “airline security is expensive theater” camp. Even if the security measures cost each traveller only 10 minutes, if you have been in a large metropolitan airport you would realized that you would need to multiply that 10 minutes by 10s of thousands of travellers every day. And IME it is more than 10 minutes, because you never know if it will be 10 minutes or an hour. So you get there 30-60 minutes earlier than you otherwise would have. Then add in the cost of all the security folk.

Seems to me that the cost of preventing the “chance” of a successful shoe or shampoo bomb gets pretty darned expensive. I’ve also suggested letting the market handle this. You could have an airline catering to the timid by requiring cavity searches and charging a premium.

Then you have the backwards thinking. Gee, they used airlines and box cutters before. Apparently that is what they will use again. As was mentioned above, why have these countless evildoers been unable to smuggle a single anti-aircraft missile near an airport anywhere in the world?

And what about the possibilities of conventional terror. Look at your city, and think of the costs of a couple of intelligently placed U-Hauls loaded with fertilizer bombs. How many bridges/tunnels would it take to shut down your city. How about a couple of suicide folks entering a train station or airport with explosive laden suitcases and automatic weapons? Or crowded malls or amusement parks? Wouldn’t be too hard to enccourage folks to stay home.

My favorite for meaningless security - requiring a photo ID to enter a government building.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make…

I agree with you to a large extent. My post specifically was answering msmith537 who said that the comparison of 9/11 to auto accidents was invalid. His argument was that accidents are small, isolated events that kill a few. 9/11 was a catastrope that killed thousands and cost billions. I was pointing out that auto accidents are a slow motion disaster of a magnitude that dwarfs 9/11 both in casualties and in financial burden.

Anyone would be afraid in any vehicle anywhere at any time if it became known that there was an explosive device on board. What is the unreasonable, and unnecessarily costly thing (in my opinion), is the anticipatory fear that has led to the creation of a vast bureaucracy for airline passenger screening. That and the fact that it is largely cosmetic; takes away fingernail files and in test after test has allowed people to get through with really dangerous items.

No, a small bullethole in the fuselage won’t cause someone to be sucked out of the aircraft or for it to fly out of control, but it will make the environment very uncomfortable. There’s also significant risk of a stray bulleted puncturing control lines, a fuel tank, or most importantly, a human being; there is pretty much no way to discharge a firearm on a commercial aircraft without a high probability of hitting some bystander and violating Rules #2 and #4 of safe firearm handling. Air Marshals receive special training and use frangible ammunition to reduce the hazard of this, but ordinary citizens or even police officers carrying firearms on an aircraft strikes me as an inordinately bad idea.

Sam, you’re my hero.

Stranger

I personally am in favor of all the airport security and have never felt inconvenienced by it. It’s easy to say this or that measure is ludicrous like a good armchair quarterback. But what if it were you who, upon learning that x number of terrorists had just been caught planning to sneak some sort of bad-ass liquid – flammable, explosive, whatever – onto x number of planes, had to make a judgment call right then and there about what to do? How about some of you giving your phone numbers to the authorities so they can call you and consult with you about what’s best to do the next time something like that pops up, since so many here know so much better what to do. That guy in this thread who remarked that people thought he didn’t care whether they lived or died; gee, I wonder why anyone would think that about him. :rolleyes:

You think you’ve seen tight airline security? Ha! Two words for you: El Al. My Thai wife participated in research at Hebrew University in Israel for a period in the mid-1990s and had to fly El Al two or three times. She and the other passengers had to go through an interview process upon check-in. El Al set up a little area in the Bangkok airport to conduct the interviews. I’m a white American, but she was grilled about the details of how we met (and I wasn’t even going with her) since she had married a foreigner. She had to list any Muslim friends we had, especially if they lived in Muslim countries, and how she had come to know them. But she didn’t mind, and the staff were courteous and professional. And this was years before 9/11.

So I find this whining about modern-day security measures in place in airports today extremely pathetic myself.

Ah, yes, the old “somebody else has it worse, so quit’cher bitchin’!” argument. The other side of that coin is that Israel exists in its current form only because it has become a totalitarian, expansionist fortress that routinely violates the civil rights of its own citizens and anyone else it chooses to. Thanks, but no thanks.

This question wouldn’t even be up for discussion if Homeland Security (and that name just gives me chills every time I hear it!) just fucused on the stuff that made flying safer. But no-fly lists, confiscating pocket knives and dictating the size of your after-shave bottle is worse than just inconvenient. It’s incompetent. It declares to the world, “We don’t know what the fuck we’re doing, we just hope some of this works.”

The only good thing to come of the security hysteria is that it’s cut down a lot on the crap passengers haul onto airplanes with them. I say, if you have to drag it along on wheels, it’s not carry-on, people!

I’m not sure you need to be fitted for a tinfoil hat to suspect that the administration derives some benefit from instilling and maintaining an elevated degree of unfocussed fear among its population.

Not sure if you used the phrase knowingly, but for anyone who isn’t aware, “Security Theater” is indeed a technical term used by professionals in the field (obligatory wiki link).

Also, for those who say you can’t kill as many people with a car bomb as you can with an airliner, what would happen if you loaded a napalm-type device into a container truck and set it off in the middle of the Holland Tunnel?

I agree with everything except no-fly lists, although I’m welcome to being informed on why I should agree with that too. What’s wrong with putting international criminals and terrorists on no-fly lists? Sure, they could just get fake IDs and all that, but IIRC many of the 9/11 hijackers were on the list and only got into the U.S. and on the planes due to incompetence.

The problem with no-fly lists is that it’s just that – a list of names. The TV show “Boston Legal” had a great take on it a couple of weeks ago. There’s no other verification, fingerprints aren’t included – not even birthdate, physical description or SSN. Just a name. It’s ridiculous.

I think that what makes terrorism so much scarier than car accidents is that they don’t happen in isolation. After 9/11 polls showed that OBL’s popularity in the Muslim world soared. Once the Taliban got humiliated in Afghanistan a few weeks later a lot of that momentum was lost. If we let the Islamofascists get away with another attack, that’s not the end of it. It’s more lilke the begining of tthe next phase.

I agree that airport security is a bad joke. You definitely need passenger profiling to make it more efficient.

In the meantime I think one of the main reasons that we haven’t been hit since 9/11 is that we’re taking the fight to them. It’s hard to organize a big attack when your best people are getting picked up and giving away more names.

:rolleyes: Oh, please. Their “best people” are laughing at us while we kidnap perfectly innocent people and imprison or torture them. Nor have we “taken the fight to them”; we’re to busy slaughtering and raping and torturing and destroying in Iraq to go after terrorists.

IMHO, they haven’t hit us since 9-11 is because they have no reason to; it would be counterproductive for them. Bush and the Republicans are doing far more damage to us than any terrorist could; in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they try another attack after he’s out of office, in hopes of discrediting the Democrats and getting another Republican in office.

Can you believe how fortunate the 9/11 attakers have been?

As an initial step, I doubt anyone could have dreamt that the towers would collapse so spectacularly. But then to have the US (over)react in the manner that we have, wasting hundreds of billions of $ bogging ourselves down in an unnecessary war, coming to them sparing them the need to travel to us, pissing away international opinion, providing a blatant lightning rod for Arab anti-American sentiment, reducing civil liberties of our own citizens …

Talk about hitting the jackpot for their initial investment. We’ve really shown them! :rolleyes: