Won't asking people to take a swig solve a bunch of those issues?

jandrewrogers 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This was done! It created terrible publicity incidents like the TSA forcing women to drink their own breast milk to prove it was safe. And not all liquids subject to this are things a person should swig even if they aren’t explosives. The extremely negative PR rightly stopped this practice.

	▲	bdavbdav 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is that practice not really common? I’ve seen that done as a matter of course on lots of international airports with baby food / liquid and no one seems to get too fussed about it.

▲

jrockway 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People travel with liquids they don't intend to eat. Shampoo and all that.

There is also nothing that precludes explosives from being non-toxic. Presumably your demise is near if you are carrying explosives through security. What do you care about heavy metal poisoning at that point?

▲

chipsrafferty 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But also you can fill up a water bottle after security. Wouldn't it be fairly easy to make a pen or similar innocuous item out of sodium, and drop it in a bottle of water to make an explosion?

My point is that security can never be strict enough to catch someone who's truly motivated and funded, without making it impossible to admit people at a reasonable pace, and the current rules don't really help with that except for cutting down on the riff raff terrorists. But maybe those are more common than a trained professional with high tech weapons, I don't know.

▲

jandrewrogers 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

FWIW, sodium in water is such a pathetic explosion that it would mostly be an embarrassment for the would-be bomber. It wouldn’t do any meaningful damage.

An explosion with real gravitas is far more difficult to execute than people imagine. (see also: people that think ANFO is a viable explosive) This goes a long way in explaining why truly destructive bombings are rare.

	▲	WalterBright 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Airliners are also pretty robust against damage. Although they are not designed to resist explosions, everything is redundant. This robustness is why fighters in WW2 used cannons for guns. Poking a hole in the side won't do anything.

▲

closewith 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> My point is that security can never be strict enough to catch someone who's truly motivated and funded, without making it impossible to admit people at a reasonable pace, and the current rules don't really help with that except for cutting down on the riff raff terrorists.

This is the classic HN developer arrogance and oversimplification, but let's accept this as true for argument's sake. It turns out that "riff raff terrorists" are the only ones we needed to stop as there's been no successful bombings of Western airlines in 25 years, and there have been foiled attempts.

The existence of master locksmiths (and door breaching charges) doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your door at night.

	▲	WalterBright 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		And nobody's going to fall for that "open the cockpit door or I kill the flight attendant" again.
	▲	sgjohnson 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> and there have been foiled attempts. have there?
	▲	troupo 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> The existence of master locksmiths (and door breaching charges) doesn't mean you shouldn't lock your door at night. The TSA checkpoints are the equivalent of moving all your belongings onto the lawn, and then locking the door. Why bother with the plane when now you have potentialy a magnitude more people in the queue to TSA?