That’ll teach you to tailgate.
At some point, the security is good enough to make you safe. Anything beyond that doesn’t make you -more- safe. If there are only a few incidents of break ins, then posting an armed guard outside is a ridiculous measure, when just locking the door would be fine.
From my perspective, based on a relatively small number of airline incidents both pre and post 9/11, our airline security is pretty good. Unfortunately, some of our measures are pure bullshit. They are, as someone said, security theatre, that does nothing to improve security. They are most often knee jerk reactions some specific incident.
Feel good measures only serve to keep the clueless population placated.
Good for you, RNATB! I knew you’d get it! (or Boss would save you, whichever).
So let’s see where we are now. You have now logically equated the chance of an elephant walking into your yard with a terrorist attempt to disrupt/destroy a flight. Sounds about right to me. And of course, the always lucid and interesting rumor has suggested that the chance of an attack on an American flight by a terrorist is the chance of being robbed on a deserted island. Gotcha.
I guess there’s no adults who want to join in? **Penguin **is actually much closer to the right answer here - ie, can we swallow the cost of the protection, given the assumptions he’s made?
The percentage of flights that carry Air Marshals is actually classified. Someone here has suggested 3%; whoever says that, please re-send that site if you would be so kind. Keep in mind that, as someone with a pretty high security clearance myself, I have my doubts about any figure that is making the press, I know how these numbers get protected.
But keep in mind there are 28,000 flights in the USA each day, and thousands of air marshals employed. Maybe 80% of all air marshals are actually working, the rest are sick, in training, etc. And each air marshal will do 2-3 flights a day. Sounds like more than 3% to me. I would think that 10k air marshals would cover it all, or enough at least to be a real deterrent. With a burdened rate of maybe $100k/year, that gives us $10b in total “jack”, as Boss so eloquently put it, or roughly the cost of 30 F-22 Raptors, of which we don’t need any more.
:dubious: We’re in a recession and you want to risk crippling America’s tourist trade? We had enough of that in the year following 9/11.
[quote=“Mr_Smashy, post:143, topic:522908”]
point me to where I suggested that.
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Does my tone come across as cocky? I hope so.
On this you and I completely agree. 
I’d suggest that Janet’s latest ones of keeping people in their seats the last hour of the flight, not allowing access to carry-ons, and not letting people have anything in their laps :eek: qualify. This actually brings us full circle back to the OP. Such symmetry.
I would also suggest that both air marshals and, even better, more backscatter machines (fuck the ACLU and that Utah congressman who think it’s privacy invasion/porn, respectively), would actually secure our flights and save American lives.
[quote=“Rumor_Watkins, post:145, topic:522908”]
Post 126.
Maybe you want to back down from that. I understand.
(*If you mean something else, here’s your chance to explain)
when’s the last time an american died in an air terrorism related incident, again?
[quote=“Mr_Smashy, post:147, topic:522908”]
did you even graduate from the remedial English courses of your high school?
I wonder about the three percent too. According to CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/03/25/siu.air.marshals/index.html
so perception is that there’s a scarcity of Marshals but that’s been denied. In this case, both sides would have an interest in fudging the numbers but we now have a cite at 1%. I’m more than willing to concede this is probably low but close enough to be considered. The number according to the agency is 4 digits so at 1k, we’d need to have 28k dudes if there is indeed 28,000 flights right? Not necessarily.
Now, consider that none of the marshals working a cross country flight or any flight of four hours is going to work 2-3 flights a day and I can’t imagine working three flights in an 8 hour day is practical for most agents. I’m really thinking those numbers are off a lot.
To me, it seems that the cost keeps rising and I have provided the sites I’ve used to form that opinion. I’m looking forward to seeing some counter information from you if you find it.
Penguin, read TSA’s response to that 3% cite:
http://www.tsa.gov/approach/mythbusters/fams_shortage.shtm
Here’s a cite that shows 37k flights/day but includes general aviation, obviously not what we’re talking about here
ps Penguin it’s nice to chat with someone who actually wants to discuss/debate, not shout and insult…
…
even if they are wrong…
Anyway it’s midnight here on the East Coast, bedtime, we’ll see what other comments collect from the children.
How long ago did you leave Texas?
Whatever you’re smoking, I’d like some. Elephants? :dubious:
Wanna pack a bowl of pachyderm? Smoke a little Dumbo? Wait, we got peanuts? Yeah? Cool.
Right, we can’t include general aviation but if it includes it then there is no way that commercial aviation is 28k.
Ok, here’s NATCA numbers which I trust, I used to be a controller after all. 
I’m saying the 28k figure is a good one.
Now, about the refutation. I’d included that part of my previous quote precisely to not give only a slanted view but consider, 1001 is in the thousands. That’s roughly 3-4 times the CNN numbers which if true doesn’t change my assertion that the cost wouldn’t just go up but skyrocket if we had to have a marshal on every flight.
Also, in the interest of security it makes sense that they’d estimate high, not low, for the deterrent factor. We have no proof of course, but I’m thinking the numbers are closer to 1 than to 10 and even at 5k that’s still a need of 23k to cover every flight with one marshal and upward of 28k agents to cover 2 or 3 per flight on the flights that need them.
I think marshals are effective but they’re not that effective and considering the terrorists are trying methods that an air marshal won’t directly affect leads me to be confident that the current secrecy condition and marshal level is working pretty good all things considered.
All of this doesn’t mean shit. They will eventually blow up more airplanes, and they will eventually set off a dirty bomb or a full blown nuke in the harbor of a major US port. It’s inevitable. It will happen.
It’s not a Dem or Pubbie thing. There are some people out there who simply hate America and they will fuck with us anytime they get a chance.
We can take off our shoes at airports, we can profile people, we can go naked on the fucking planes, it doesn’t matter. Some day they will get us again.
I don’t go to bed at night worrying about it.
I would like to reiterate this.
It’s going to happen. The terrorists are being proactive, we’re being reactive. They only have to be lucky once- we have to be lucky all the time. As such, there’s just simply no way to stop it from happening.
They get to continuously probe our defenses. They won’t try to do something that will be stopped by our defenses- they will try to do the things our defenses don’t cover. That’s why 9/11 worked: our system at that time allowed them to have box cutters, told passengers to work with hostage takers, and allowed for the passengers to have access to the cockpit. None of that will work now, but it doesn’t matter much- since we now block that method, they will simply try something else. The only way to completely stop airborne terrorism is simply to not fly.
Put a sky marshall on every flight? They’ll find a method which gets around it. It’s simply going to happen.
It all comes down to expenditure and inconvenience. How much of each are you willing to go through to be “safe”? You’re statistically more likely, as it is, to be struck by lightning than to be killed by terrorists. Do you ever go outside during thunderstorms?
Good responses, Penguin and Lightnin.
I agree with some of that, especially about US always fighting the last war, that the evildoers (as your political icon used to call them) will continue to invent new doctrine to attack soft spots we haven’t thought of yet.
I think we may be in some kind of violent agreement here, not sure. I would even be willing to let some flights skip the air marshal, as long as there were enough to act as a deterrent; and 3% or 10% isn’t enough in my book. Further, I can’t believe we don’t have the millimeter wave machines at ***every ***airport, including (warning: jingo-time) forcing scans OCONUS if they want the privilege of landing in my country.
Could we afford more marshals? Of course we could, if it were important enough to us. We’re talking about another 10k or 15k people. DHS currently has 184,434 employees, according to my handy-dandy INPUT database. Their FY10 budget request is $45b, give or take, which includes contractors. We have the room for more marshals. (for those who are interested in a sense of scale, the Treasury has 112,495 employees, the Justice dept 111,031, the VA has 292,848 and the USPS almost 700k).
If you go back to my CSM cite you’ll see that the number of air marshals was actually dropping in 2005, because they were having trouble recruiting.
So, we’d have to substantially increase pay levels just to maintain our current numbers. Then, your idea that they could each cover 2-3 flights a day is ridiculous.
In any case, landing in “your” country is not a privilege.