|
| ▲ | ssl-3 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The grunts working for TSA on the floor at airports aren't desperately clinging for the notion that they're doing something important, or working towards some lofty, noble, and/or altruistic goal. It's just a job. They're principally motivated to do this job by the promise of a steady paycheck and decent benefits -- the same motivation that most other people with steady paychecks and decent benefits also have. |
| |
| ▲ | dataengineer56 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | In my experience many of them do feel like they're doing something important, and some seem principally motivated to do the job by the promise of being able to bully travellers. |
|
|
| ▲ | matwood 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > They don't stop hijackings (locking the cockpit door does that) 9/11 also stopped all future hijackings. Up to that point passengers were trained that if they stayed calm they would likely survive. Now? Short of the hijackers getting guns on the plane, passengers will absolutely fight back. > they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber) Suicide bombers are probably the main vector that TSA helps avoid even if they miss some items sometimes. |
|
| ▲ | closewith 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > they don't stop bombings (there are much better targets for that, which don't involve killing the bomber), I think you should read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airliner_bombing_a... The only reason you believe aircraft bombings aren't being stopped is because you live in a world where rigourous security has stopped all aircraft bombings. |
| |
| ▲ | reeredfdfdf 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah. The "security theater" absolutely does play its part in stopping attacks. Without it, airplanes would be an extremely easy target for any nutjob to commit mass murder in. They wouldn't even necessarily need a bomb, anything that can cause a big enough fire mid-flight could be potentially catastrophic. Over past few decades many airliners have crashed because out of control fire in the cabin / cargo hold. I really don't want it to be easy for any random person to cause such fire. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Without it, airplanes would be an extremely easy target for any nutjob to commit mass murder in. They still are, but I'm not comfortable spelling out details. The 95% TSA failure rate should lead you to this conclusion naturally. > They wouldn't even necessarily need a bomb, anything that can cause a big enough fire mid-flight could be potentially catastrophic. People have plenty of such things with them as it currently stands. Plenty more can be trivially brought on board in a checked bag or even pocket. But again I'm not going to spell it out. > I really don't want it to be easy for any random person to cause such fire. Well that's unfortunate because it already is. I think the primary things protecting passengers are the cost of entry (the true nutjobs don't tend to be doing so well financially) and the passengers themselves. Regarding the latter, the shoe bomber was subdued by his fellow passengers. | |
| ▲ | sethammons 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Did you drop a sarcasm tag? Anyone can make a fire on a plane as they allow lighters on a plane, and batteries, and any number of flammable objects. None of that is facing any scrutiny nor stopping crazy people from being crazy. | | |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I've heard that cell phones often catch fire on planes, and the crews know how to deal with that. I guess they have to because the odds of one going up are pretty good across so many flights. |
| |
| ▲ | wakawaka28 35 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most would-be attackers are not suicidal, I suppose. You would have to be in order to start a fire on a plane that you are on. |
| |
| ▲ | VBprogrammer an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Trains are a much easier target in most countries. Generally only the high-speed / cross border ones have any security at all. Until maybe 10 years ago you didn't even really need a ticket to get access to one (now ticket barriers are common). | |
| ▲ | thaumasiotes 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There's a pretty strong trend in that timeline of two types of "bombings": (1) Bombings in which the bomb is supplied by someone who isn't flying on the plane; (2) Failed hijackings in which there was no intent to bomb the plane, but a bomb accidentally went off. |
|
|
| ▲ | throwaway290 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > they don't stop weapons (lots of airports outside the US have simple metal detectors for that.) There are 3D printed guns. |
| |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Those tend to have extremely limited usefulness. Good enough to assassinate a single person at point blank range before they catastrophically fail but (unless something has changed) not much else. Plastic just isn't cut out for the job. | |
| ▲ | koshergweilo 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't you still need metal bullets for the 3d printed gun? |
|
