I think that would be more of an issue if terrorism was a spur-of-the-moment crime. Violence on the streets can be completely random (violent people getting angry for no appreciable reason) or without much premeditation (a mugger mugging whomever he sees). In these cases, a police presence would deter a lot of the crime.
A terrorist attack would have to be planned. Anything at all meaningful is going to require explosives: you won't be able to hijack or even severely damage a plane with a knife or even a gun these days. Anybody who goes out of their way, gets explosives and probably has special training isn't going to be stopped by a bunch of ineffectual bureaucrats in silly uniforms. Anybody else isn't going to be much more dangerous on a plane than on the ground, so added security would make little sense.
This is actually a somewhat unlikely scenario. Just as there is 'security theater' there is also 'terrorism theater' - an act of destruction that gains worldwide attention and draws attention the particular cause the terrorist cares about and wants publicity for, be it positive or negative. The essential goal of terrorism is to force people to pay attention by causing something so horrifying that it is guaranteed to get news coverage. This is much more effective against civilians and in peaceful countries, because lots of journalists will show up with cameras - unlike a war zone, where only a few will venture in and where the coverage is likely to vary widely in subject matter and tone. Airplanes and other forms of mass transit are particularly effective because they frighten people enough to create a lot of political pressure, and they're visually spectacular. Likewise bombs in popular or famous locations.
Now a bomb in an airport is much less effective, for a few reasons. Of course, it will kill and injure a lot of people, but it won't create the desired spectacle. Access to the scene is going to be limited by the building's geography and the additional security, so there won't be any strong defining images that capture the essence of the whole event. Bloody and tearful civilians get photographed, of course, but in the collective imagination one group of victims/survivors looks very much like another. People will remember that something bad happened, and where, but it won't be very distinct from similar events that are distant in time or place. Secondly, it would be possible to cut the risk of a repeat incident substantially by requiring advance check-in or use of a credit card to purchase tickets, and prohibiting any entry to the airport facilities proper without a ticket. This is not far away from what already happens with a boarding pass, but is that little bit more traceable and thus raises the barriers to entry. Third, a plane is a confined space with a fairly narrow margin of safe operation. There is nowhere to flee too if a terrorist loses his nerve (and a higher probability of getting caught once the plane lands), and even if the terrorist fails the 'mission' is not a total bust because there will be panic and an emergency landing, which will at least rattle people. In an airport, a hesitant individual may simply give up and leave before blowing himself up, or if his fear betrays him and others become suspicious, he may find himself the lonely occupant of an empty space before being shot or set upon or (worst of all, from the terrorist planner point of view) setting off his bomb and not killing or seriously injuring anyone but himself. Flying is unusual enough for most people, and the awareness of terrorism sufficiently high, that people traveling in airports tend to have elevated levels of alertness.
If the goal of terrorism was simply to kill as many people as possible, then there are abundant opportunities for doing so that are easier than an airport, and arguably more frightening. There are larger and denser crowds of people all over the place where a terrorist could cause carnage with ease. But they lack the visual distinctiveness, the element of captivity, and the mobility that mean not only could you get blown up IN a plane, you could walking along minding your own business and have one fall out of the sky on top of you.
As for the structural considerations, consider that takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of a plane flight, on average. Airports are thus more likely to experience a plane-size accident than almost any other location. Planners and architects are well aware of this, and the structures and materials used to build the airport are rated to withstand a higher level of destructive force than normal buildings. An explosion in a massive terminal is likely to result in less damage, not more, because the explosive force will be dissipated in the cavernous space. It's explosions in small confined spaces that are really worrying, because then the pressure wave doesn't have many options about where to go and bounces around within the space reducing everything to small fragments. For the simplest possible demonstration of this, take a tweezers and hold a match in a flame; it flares up and goes out. Now take another match, wrap the head in tinfoil, and repeat. Wear safety glasses.
Too bad in the USA somebody will call the FAA and they call Homeland - - and then a thousand goons in black riot suits descend upon you with assault rifles and bazookas -- - shouting: arrest everyone !
At peak times, like a Monday morning, at a big airport, there will be more people in line than in an entire plane. A terrorist could easily could more death and destruction by bombing the security line than an airport. Not to mention that the incident would likely ground all incoming/outgoing air traffic to that airport.
"It would obviously be tragic and damaging for someone to attack "defenseless" passengers with "traditional" weapons, but -- in my eyes -- it's not terribly different from a random attack in the street or a shopping mall."
Well one way it's different is in the availability of emergency response personnel. In the air you are confined in a small space and much further from help.
Good point. If you were serious about terrorism, and had an ounce of intelligence, why would you go after a plane at all? There are a huge number of other things you could attack, that are much easier targets. Football games have a lot of people packed in a small space, and if you set off a panic with a bomb or something, more people would be injured. If you sneak into a big party and spike the punch with poison, it would scare the crap out of people -- is nowhere safe? Or sneak a bomb into someone else's carry-on luggage, and set it off when they're waiting in the security line. What's the TSA going to do? Make a security line to get in the security line?
I've wondered this myself as well - in my mind, 'all' one need do is pierce a fully-charged iPad and then aim the resultant jet of flame at a plane window, and like a violin, a well-publicised fear-inducing terrorist event at worst, or a downed plane at best.
Moreover, any sort of active assault on an airport by terrorists presumably defeats their actual goal--sneaking something or someone onto a plane.
Even if they manage to fight their way into the airport, planes would be grounded and outside forces alerted before the attackers could do anything useful.
Being given control of the aircraft is secondary. You've condemned 200 odd people to death cause of one person on the flight. A small bomb, any thing to disrupt the flight will do that. (This is very easy as opposed to going to a theater or other urban crowded locations and staying alive long enough to take out that many people). The point being your only option is to lose everyone on the plane. Is that a casualty you're willing to accept. Security works by deterrence. If every time someone starts shooting in theaters and schools, the casualty is upwards of 200, its going to be a more viable option. Its a question of the cost of doing something vs the damage it causes. the inherent nature of flights (Since they fly), is that it takes relatively less effort to get one to crash. And it terms of preparation (in this ideal scenario as per this article), one guy just has to walk into a plane with items you get in your local store (propane maybe?). Im not an expert on this, but i just feel the effort required is just ridiculously easy if there is going to be no one to keep a tab on what you carry/have access to on a flight.
I think what most people are forgetting is the reason for such measures on flights. An hijacked flight is very different from other hijaking/terrorist situations. It leaves you with almost no options except maybe to shoot it down. There is absolutely no other tactical moves that can be made. The same cannot be said for similar attacks on theaters/schools etc. A flight is also a moving threat that requires swift response, and it can strike (when used as a weapon) over quite a large area (In terms of targets it may choose).
Now, if we as this article suggests remove all security to get on flights. As someone planning such an incident, i.e. pull out a gun or other random acts of terror; It would follow that getting on a flight to do such a thing would be the best move. You literally have access to 200+ people with no where to run in a confined area, with no security. The reason flights are given security vs other places such as theaters etc is not some random act. It is cause of the specific threats that are posed by hijacked flights/weapons on flights that are fundamentally different from other locations.
(How fast would the cops get to someone who starts firing at people in any city with such high population density?, now compare that with what happens in a flight, you have no options, and once it starts you practically write off the people who are on the flight because you have no chance of saving them)
Why didn't the FAA get the cops or military to scramble some jets to apprehend this individual? How is this not a national security threat?? Who knows if they were strapped with IED type device.
If the odds of this happening are marginal at best (well, they are, apparently - airliners don't get blown up every day) and the risk is largest that such an attack will be instigated from a few, known places - then by all means focus your efforts on those places/airlines.
After all, nabbing the laptops of, say, a few million people daily or however many people fly because there is a non-zero risk that someone flying from one of a handful airports may be up to shenanigans probably isn't worth it.
Terror is exceedingly rare as long as you are not living in, say, the less savory parts of Syria or Afghanistan. We shouldn't spend an unlimited amount of time, money and convenience on a problem which is marginal on the worst of days.
That really has nothing to do with being on airplane though, does it? There are endless places where you can get within stabbing distance of a group of people.
I'd actually expect a plane to the one of the absolute safest places, because like others said, everyone on that place has just become a victim. It doesn't even matter if you like the person being victimized, you're gonna exploit that distraction and beat the fuck out of the dude.
In public people are much quicker to just run away and keep themselves safe.
I really wonder why this hasn't happened yet. I can only assume that either terrorists are maniacally fixated on the airplanes, or there are approximately zero intelligent terrorists.
reply