Ben-Gurion handles 6 to 10 million people a year. LAX handles nearly 60 million. The scaling just doesn’t work.
Do you really think that if an attack was ever once prevented by TSA’s measures that it wouldn’t be plastered across the entire media spectrum within hours?
Plain and simple, it is security for show.
New rule: everybody flies naked, nobody gets to carry on luggage.
Because the US is less than six to ten times the size of Israel… oh, wait…
They deter that kind of attack. Just because kids don’t get polio anymore doesn’t mean that we still don’t give them a shot for it, even if it’s a risk of causing an infection or allergic reaction or autism one time in 1,000 or whatever.
So I disagree with your premise that, because they haven’t caught anyone (and I’d like to see a cite that says that the TSA procedures since 9/11 haven’t caught anyone trying anything) doesn’t mean that they aren’t working. Tough to prove a negative.
Irrelevant. A polio virus is incapable of consciously adjusting tactics to avoid a specific security ritual. (Nor is adaptation by natural selection a valid analogy – that can lead a virus to become harmless as easily as it can lead to any other modification, which is not a possibility for terrorists, by definition.)
Asking for a cite for a negative? :rolleyes:
The fact that the government has not trumpeted a success story is rather convincing evidence that they simply don’t have any to trumpet. Recall, for example, how the administration would make a big deal over killing al Qaeda’s “Number Two leader”, to the point where it seemed that al Qaeda had more Number Twos than The Village and the men’s room at Fort Dix.
Seriously, if the TSA caught anything real you wouldn’t be able to avoid hearing about it. Those people on the Mongolian steppes Burger King found for those ‘people who have never had a hamburger’ commercials would know about it.
Bomb sniffing dogs are a good idea, but there are 14000 airports in the US. That means tens of thousands of dogs and handlers and whatever else they need.
Although apparently some Israelis invented a device that is even more effective.
Airline security isn’t going away. But you know what? I don’t want “real” security. I am perfectly content with the metal dectectors and random air marshals that screen out 99.9% of the morons who would otherwise bring a gun or knife onto an airplane. I am not worried about the .1%, 1 in a million event where an evil mastermind meticulously plans and executes the takeover of a plane Passenter 57 style.
What I want is to not be inconvenienced or have to suffer the rudness of some TSA moron who they just hired from Burger King or Kinkos or wherever the heck they get these people from.
But whether it is bomb-sniffing dogs or bomb-sniffing pigs, would it really cost more than the $200 million or so that’s been set aside to buy these scanners pushed by Michael Chertoff and his financial interests?
That we have more people is not the issue.
The issue is the logistics of it all.
Here is the first layer of security and Ben Gurion airport:
Imagine doing that at LAX or Chicago or New York.
And not just for the cars. You’d have to check everyone coming off whatever mass transit brings people there as well.
Traffic at O’Hare in Chicago can be bad enough as is. Stopping all cars even for 15 seconds to ask questions would backup traffic for miles.
There are two levels of security that make sense.
1: Everyone walks past a guy who gives a quick glance to be sure that nobody’s carrying a flamethrower or minigun or something, they hand their ticket to an airline employee, and everyone gets on a plane with no fuss or bother. This is the method I’d prefer.
2: Carry-ons are prohibited, checked luggage can contain nothing but paper and clothes, and everyone gets a deep ultrasound, cavity search, or X-ray, plus a sniffer (dog or machine) before getting on. All shops (food, souvenirs, whatever) within the secure area are closed down, and every door to the outside has a security guard posted on it. This would be sufficient to keep bombs off the airplanes.
The method we have now, though, where you’re not allowed to have a tube of toothpaste but where most passengers carry bombs with them, is just absurd.
Incorrect, the government is hardly likely to say, using this method we caught “Mr Coyote.”
That would give the method away. Agents are that dumb. By making it look sloppy is a good way to give people overconfidence.
As others said, you can’t prove a negative. We don’t know how many people left rather than go through searches. Maybe none, but suppose 100 did, how would you know?
People want safety and also want to scream at the first breach of security. I want to be safe but don’t want to be inconvenienced to achieve that. But if a mistake happens then it’s YOUR fault.
That’s the reasoning of a typical flyer.
Regulations can make things harder, but so what? If everyone does it, they just will find other ways to get places or put up with it.
Suppose we did put El Al rgulations in place. What of it? People would put up with having to arrive six hours eariler or drive? Or take a train? Or just not go?
Oh but that would ruin the airlines. Well perhaps, but if a person can’t fly to Disney World would drive or not go. It might hurt Disney World but perhaps he’s spend the money going to a local attraction in a day’s driving distance. You see Disney World’s loss is someone else’s gain.
Nothing would collapse, it’s just things would re-adjust. This would hurt people but eventually it would straighten out. Yes an airline or two might go out of business, but a rail service might come back or driving might be more popular.
You can see where I’m going and extend the argument out and there’s no real answer here.
The argument seems to be, TSAs haven’t helped. Maybe this is so, but you can’t prove a negative, unless you remove them and go back to pre-911 and see if anything happens.
You really don’t see the analogy, eh? The point is, just because something isn’t a problem anymore, it doesn’t mean that we don’t want to take steps to prevent the problem from occuring in the future. And it’s not unreasonable to say that our actions are at least partially responsible for avoidance of the problem occuring again.
if I was asking a cite for the negative I mentioned, I’d ask for a cite that says that TSA procedures changed the minds of some bad guy and caused them to switch tactics. That’s virtually impossible. I’m looking for a cite that says TSA procedures has not done any good since 9/11. None. I’m sure the whining crybabies at EIPC or ACLU would be singing it from the rooftops, were that true. Since you’re the one saying it’s all useless security theatre, seems to me that you’d have some evidence to back that up.
You’ll forgive me if I don’t even bother to respond to this last statement, since it’s a non sequitor and waaaaay off topic.
Edit to add: Markxxx’s response is pretty close to what I mean. Although I disagree that killing air travel would simply be a zero sum game, that those Disney dollars would go to Colonial Williamsburg or whoever in an equal amount - I still think there’d be significant damage to our tourism industry. Not to mention hindering the economy in general due to less bidness happening, which is probably the greater danger.
Note that it’s not just one guy checking cars - there a whole toll plaza-like setup with something like 8 booths, each with its own screener. I’ve never been behind more than two cars; still, I assume things are a bit more hectic at O’Hare.
As for getting off the train, there’s no personal screening there, mainly because the entire railroad network is a closed, secure system - you have to pass through a metal detector and an X-ray for your bags to get into any train station in the first place. Busses, as always, are a weak point, but AFAIK, no busses go to BGN.
In other words, you have an airport designed for security from the ground up, in a country designed for security from the ground up, for a society that thinks of security measures the same way fish think of water. It’s not something that’s easily transferable - although I’m sure certain ideas can be adapted.
Yeah, imagine the threat to national security if somebody gave away the top secret fact that the TSA runs people through detectors and gropes them. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Actually, the Israeli methods generally produce less, not more, delay.
“Lisa, I’d like to buy your rock…”
(*bolding mine)
Um… what?
Nice try. But we’re not talking about tiger repellant. Nor is this rain dancing, water witching, or some other correlation-without-causation experiment. We’re talking about common sense measures that demonstrably detect bombs, guns, and other tools of terror. And since you’re the one (foolishly) saying it’s security theatre, and us normal people have DHS/S&T saying that they work, seems to me the onus is on you to defend your ridiculous statements.
Keep at it though, you’re doing well. Almost ready for the Great Debates Special Olympics.
Every laptop has a bomb in it. There’s a lot of energy in one of those batteries, and it’s not hard to release it all at once (if you don’t mind being out the cost of a battery).
Um, OK.
(((Backs slowly out of the room)))
I’ve put the chalupa down. No need to get up, really.
I’ve seen videos of them catching fire and one that sort of exploded but nothing that I think would damage an airplane.
It’d be nasty and a mess inside the cabin (lots of smoke and perhaps setting other stuff on fire) of course and people would freak out and someone next to it could be hurt but bring down a plane? I’m dubious.
A fire on board of course would be dangerous but I am sure there are fire extinguishers on board that should be able to handle it fine.
Dedicated terrorists are pretty clever. If it was as simple as carrying a laptop on board and bringing down a plane they’d have done it already. Those batteries just won’t do the trick I think.
Scaling of what? Trained personnel? You can’t train ten people well?
The problem with the “but O’Hare/LAX/Atlanta are so much bigger” argument is that logically it must also apply to all other security measures. To implement backscatter X-ray machines at LAX you would need ten times as many as you would at Ben Gurion. To implement pat downs you need ten times as many gropers as you would at Ben-Gurion. No matter how you slice it, LAX is ten times as big and you need time times as much stuff and ten times as many people.
The question is whether you want to implement smart measures, or stupid ones. The Israelis - and this seems amazingly obvious to me - must be AMAZINGLY good at this because planes are rarely hijacked or bombed out of Israel and there’s no country in the world more hated by terrorists.
All the fancy X-ray machines in the world are going to provide you with less security than you want and more inconvenience than you want if they’re staffed by mumbling, poorly trained, low-paid, dull idiots, and with due respect to the ones who aren’t morons, I go through a lot of airports and the percentage of mumbling morons in airport security is way higher than in most jobs. If you want better security you need better guards.
(And note that this problem is not unique to the USA; the security personnel in Toronto aren’t winning any Nobel Prizes anytime soon, either.)