The Logic of Airport Searches

Berzerker · June 16, 2003, 23:09

I keep hearing people complain about airport searches to prevent terrorism not focusing on Arab men and women, but on just about everyone, including elderly women. Aren't airport personnel kind of responsible if the planeload of people they've cleared through security die because someone snuck a bomb into an innocent person's luggage? If I had that burden on me, I'd try very hard to make sure the means (and intent) to destroy a plane didn't get on board.

Sava · June 16, 2003, 23:11

Airport security is a joke... 'nuff said... the 9-11 hijackers could still do what they did to get past security today

Drake Tungsten · June 16, 2003, 23:32

Quote:

the 9-11 hijackers could still do what they did to get past security today

Who cares? No hijacker with a box cutter is going to be able to control a plane after 9/11. As long as they catch all the bombs and firearms, airport security will be a success in my book.

Sava · June 16, 2003, 23:33

too bad something like 1% of checked baggage gets searched

MichaeltheGreat · June 16, 2003, 23:36

blowing up planes at random is soooo last decade.

Drake Tungsten · June 16, 2003, 23:36

It's higher than that. Many, if not all airports, check all of their baggage now.

Zero · June 16, 2003, 23:37

airport security is like locked doors. It makes you feel safe and doesnt let lesser evil people to take advantage of absolutely no-secured situation.

alva · June 16, 2003, 23:39

Quote:

too bad something like 1% of checked baggage gets searched

If they would a full search on everyone, it would take a week for one plane to take off.

Q. would you still travel by plane, if you knew that would mean going through a strip search every time

/me takes out glove and awaits Sava's answer...

Sava · June 16, 2003, 23:42

alva: hell yeah! I'd apply to be a searcher as well...

Drake, I don't know exact figures, but I know that less than half of all checked baggage, nationwide, is searched. Security hasn't prevented more terror attacks, terrorists haven't been trying.

Drake Tungsten · June 16, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Security hasn't prevented more terror attacks, terrorists haven't been trying.

And you know this how? Are you an al-Qaeda sleeper agent? That would explain a lot.

Sava · June 16, 2003, 23:45

I know this because planes haven't been blowing up...

Drake Tungsten · June 16, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

I know this because planes haven't been blowing up...

Just because planes haven't been blowing up doesn't prove that terrorists aren't trying to attack planes any longer. Improved security is an equally valid reason for the drop in terror attacks on planes.

For the record, I think it is a combination of both.

Kuciwalker · June 16, 2003, 23:48

... does not exist

Sava · June 16, 2003, 23:49

Statistically, if a terrorist puts ten suitcases in checked baggage, all with bombs, at least five will get through.

Drake Tungsten · June 16, 2003, 23:52

You mind giving some actual statistics to back up your "statistical" claim?

Berzerker · June 16, 2003, 23:54

Sava -

Quote:

Security hasn't prevented more terror attacks, terrorists haven't been trying.

True, unless government hasn't told us about a terrorist caught trying to sneak a bomb on board so they can gain some advantage.

MtG -

Quote:

blowing up planes at random is soooo last decade.

Yup, they graduated from bombs in planes to plane bombs, what do they graduate to now?

Sava · June 16, 2003, 23:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You mind giving some actual statistics to back up your "statistical" claim?

I already said I don't have any... I doubt they would be trustworthy anyways... the figures I am recalling are from MSNBC or CNN reports I heard a few weeks ago.

Kuciwalker · June 16, 2003, 23:58

Sava... you wanna actually try your little expirement?

Sava · June 17, 2003, 00:00

MSNBC did, they got in trouble for it. They didn't have real bombs, but they breached security in airports and only were stopped a small percentage of times. This was a big story about a month ago, doesn't anyone else recall this?

Dis · June 17, 2003, 00:00

I kinda agree with Sava on this one too. Something must be wrong with me.

MichaeltheGreat · June 17, 2003, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sava -

True, unless government hasn't told us about a terrorist caught trying to sneak a bomb on board so they can gain some advantage.

MtG -

Yup, they graduated from bombs in planes to plane bombs, what do they graduate to now?

Do it yourself cruise missile for under $5,000

I figure for five to six times that, I can do a slightly larger, multistage jet to air-launched ballistic missile combo that would deliver a small nuke to about 1500 feet AGL within 15-20 minutes of first starting it's initial climb to launch attitude.

Kuciwalker · June 17, 2003, 00:16

fun fun

Sava · June 17, 2003, 00:17

hah Diss... I make more sense than many would like to admit... I just have some really unorthodox ideas about how to do things.

Sava · June 17, 2003, 00:18

MtG: I POSTED A THREAD ABOUT THAT A WEEK OR TWO AGO!!!

MichaeltheGreat · June 17, 2003, 00:19

I didn't see it - I linked to the same thing last week in another thread.

The guy's basic ideas are pretty sound, although I'd change a few things slightly.

Sava · June 17, 2003, 00:21

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I didn't see it - I linked to the same thing last week in another thread.

well you suck!

Quote:

The guy's basic ideas are pretty sound, although I'd change a few things slightly.

If I had money I'd like to build one, just to see if it worked. I might bomb the Illinois Tollway Authority.

jk I don't want Ashcroft knocking on my door

alva · June 17, 2003, 00:23

Quote:

I figure for five to six times that, I can do a slightly larger, multistage jet to air-launched ballistic missile combo that would deliver a small nuke to about 1500 feet AGL within 15-20 minutes of first starting it's initial climb to launch attitude.

What? Now you're a rocket scientist too???!!

Lorizael · June 17, 2003, 00:59

No, he's just omniscient.

Not airport security, but still stupid security.

A few weeks ago I went down to DC and visited a couple of museums. Every one of them had metal detectors and security guards posted at the entrance, just to make sure you couldn't get in with anything bad.

But the exists were totally devoid of any security, and were accessible from the outside.

Dis · June 17, 2003, 01:11

I am happy there is security at the Hoover Dam, but the security is a joke. There are no solid barriers, just wooden and metal structures to block one side of the road on the Arizona side. The cars are forced to pull off the side of the road. Commercial trucks are banned from crossing the dam (Driving on top of the Damn is the shortest way to get from Las Vegas to most part of Arizona like Phoenix). But the problem is a terrorist truck could just go on the opposite side of the two lane road and drive past the checkpoint. One would hope the people at the checkpoint would have radios and could radio someone down below to stop the truck. But from what I seen, there is no additional security at the dam aside from perhaps a Dam security guard.

Now a better system would be to have a concrete barrier on the two lane road preventing vehicles from driving on the opposite lanes. The barrier would have to extend at least a half of a mile. For those that crash through the barrier, you have to have another response team down below with spike strips and heavy firepower to stop a large truck.

There are also dirt roads that one may be able to take a four wheel drive vehicle. But from what I can tell, you can't actually get on the main road from them. The hills are so steep the roads may not go very far. And getting a vehicle with enough explosives on them is highly on likely.

I just don't think the security at the checkpoints is capable of calling in sufficient back up quick enough to stop a truck that runs the checkpoint.

So the Hoover Dam is there for the taking if anyone wants to blow it up. Although the amount of explosives necessary to do so would have to enourmous. I would think that a full tractor trailor full of explosives would be necessary. A Ryder truck like in Oklahoma city would not be sufficient due to detonation on top of the damn forcing the blast in other directions.

It has been listed as one of the top 10 targets on the west coast that can be targetted by N. Korean cruise missiles (this study was made to determine the threat of N. Korea). It would cause much devastation accross the desert southwest. Namely irrigation water for crops and such, not to mention electricity generation. And we won't go into the loss of life downstream.

MichaeltheGreat · June 17, 2003, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by alva

Quote:

I figure for five to six times that, I can do a slightly larger, multistage jet to air-launched ballistic missile combo that would deliver a small nuke to about 1500 feet AGL within 15-20 minutes of first starting it's initial climb to launch attitude.

What? Now you're a rocket scientist too???!!

Actually, rocketry has been one of my "fun" things going way back. Living in Houston during most of the manned spaceflight era might have had something to do with that.