TSA - Going too Far?

[Balta1701]

Where does all this lead? Back to the observation -- again, one made incessantly in this space -- that by the time a terrorist conspiracy matures to the point that it is ready for execution, it is, generally speaking, too late to stop it. If a cavity bomber reaches the airport without detection, he will have a high-likelihood of success in carrying out his mission. Which means, obviously, that much of the money we spend on airport security could be better spent on intelligence collection, and on the breaking up of terror cells overseas.[/i]

The flaw in that logic is that it assumes that the amounts of money spent on the 2 sides are comparable. I'd be willing to bet that the costs of improving intelligence overseas are much, much more substantial than the costs of these machines, no matter how much Secretary Chertoff is making on them.

 

If the machines produce small gains in security for small increases in costs, while better overseas intelligence has the potential to produce large gains in security but requires large increases in costs, now you've got a much more complicated question.

[Controlled Chaos]

The flaw in that logic is that it assumes that the amounts of money spent on the 2 sides are comparable. I'd be willing to bet that the costs of improving intelligence overseas are much, much more substantial than the costs of these machines, no matter how much Secretary Chertoff is making on them.

 

If the machines produce small gains in security for small increases in costs, while better overseas intelligence has the potential to produce large gains in security but requires large increases in costs, now you've got a much more complicated question.

Look the main thing that needs to be prevented is using the plane as a missle. That has been addressed with more secure cockpit doors as well as a more prepared group of passengers and FA's. If that is taken out of the equation, the chance for mass casualties is very limited. A terrorist can inflict more damage a number of other ways and blowing yourself up in line at the airport would be one of those ways....as would doing it in a stadium or a train station or a mall or something. Strong security is needed and I'm usually all for doing things in the name of safety, but molestation is not one of them...this is just out of whack.

[Balta1701]

Look the main thing that needs to be prevented is using the plane as a missle. That has been addressed with more secure cockpit doors as well as a more prepared group of passengers and FA's. If that is taken out of the equation, the chance for mass casualties is very limited. A terrorist can inflict more damage a number of other ways and blowing yourself up in line at the airport would be one of those ways....as would doing it in a stadium or a train station or a mall or something. Strong security is needed and I'm usually all for doing things in the name of safety, but molestation is not one of them...this is just out of whack.

Blowing yourself up on a plane takes out somewhere between 100-300 people because it's a confined space. Doing so in a line maybe gets you 20-50, if you have a giant amount of explosives.

[BigSqwert]

Blowing yourself up on a plane takes out somewhere between 100-300 people because it's a confined space. Doing so in a line maybe gets you 20-50, if you have a giant amount of explosives.

If you're talking about a major airport like O'Hare, the snaking security lines can have a concentration of way more than 50 in a small amount of space. Maybe even more than the 100-300 on a plane.

[Balta1701]

If you're talking about a major airport like O'Hare, the snaking security lines can have a concentration of way more than 50 in a small amount of space. Maybe even more than the 100-300 on a plane.

The definition of small amount of space has changed though, because to actually kill someone in that line, you need a serious shock wave from the explosive or you need debris to hit them. You have no ability to kill anyone who isn't within the blast radius unless there is a collapse of some sort. That takes a significant quantity of explosives, especially in an open area where some of the force of the blast is wasted by, say, going upwards. On a plane, you don't need to hit any of the people with the shockwave, you just need to cripple the plane, and you're very close to the skin of it.

[BigSqwert]

The definition of small amount of space has changed though, because to actually kill someone in that line, you need a serious shock wave from the explosive or you need debris to hit them. That takes a significant quantity of explosives, especially in an open area where some of the force of the blast is wasted by, say, going upwards. On a plane, you don't need to hit any of the people with the shockwave, you just need to cripple the plane, and you're very close to the skin of it.

When talking about the security line at O'Hare I'm talking about an area where people are literally next to each other, touching practically, in all directions. I'm not referring to an open space such as the terminal or gate. The security line itself can have hundreds of people standing, very close to each other, in a very confined space. Drop a suicide bomber in the middle of that and you're losing a couple hundred easily.

Edited November 22, 2010 by BigSqwert

[Controlled Chaos]

Blowing yourself up on a plane takes out somewhere between 100-300 people because it's a confined space. Doing so in a line maybe gets you 20-50, if you have a giant amount of explosives.

 

We're not all standing in line at McGhee Tyson. 20-50 people at O'hare would be a short line.

[Balta1701]

We're not all standing in line at McGhee Tyson. 20-50 people at O'hare would be a short line.

You don't think I've gone through a line at an airport? Come on man.

 

Even in the most crowded areas at LAX, you would need a very, very powerful explosive to get 100 people. Too much of the energy dissipates away from the people. There's a reason why bombers put things like nails into bombs; the killing power of raw explosives is really quite limited unless you have a large enough quantity to damage a structure.

[BigSqwert]

You don't think I've gone through a line at an airport? Come on man.

 

Even in the most crowded areas at LAX, you would need a very, very powerful explosive to get 100 people. Too much of the energy dissipates away from the people. There's a reason why bombers put things like nails into bombs; the killing power of raw explosives is really quite limited unless you have a large enough quantity to damage a structure.

 

Away from the people? What about this scenario where the bomber, indicated by the red X, is surrounded by a snaking line with at least 100 people surrounding him?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

This is a silly argument. Change the location to a sporting event, have 3-4 bombers act collectively and you have THOUSANDS of victims, not 100. It's the same idea. There's hardly any security in any other aspect of our daily lives yet getting on an airplane changes the game.

[Balta1701]

Away from the people? What about this scenario where the bomber, indicated by the red X, is surrounded by a snaking line with at least 100 people surrounding him?

 

Ok, so in the case where I'm 3 people behind the bomber...that's 3 people I have in front of me to absorb the force of the impact. Unless there is a very, very lo roof, the energy of the explosion is going to be concentrated most in the 9 people directly around the bomber...then the next layer out, there is a full set of people in the way to shield them. Some of them will probably get hit by flying material, but they're not likely to have their bodies torn apart by the impact. To first order, if you detonate in that area, you'll hit the people right around you very hard, but then those people will serve as something of a wall, blocking energy from hitting the layer of people behind them. Getting to that 2nd layer of people takes a very large quantity of explosives. Furthermore, if the bomb itself contains shrapnel, the first layer of people get peppered; the 2nd layer doesn't get hit directly.

 

The other thing going on in most of the airports I've been in is very high ceilings. That first layer of people will have energy bounce off of them, but any energy directed upwards will keep going.

 

Killing a lot of people in that format takes a large quantity of explosives. There's a reason why, in countries with serious terrorist problems, when you hear of death tolls in the hundreds, it's because the bomb went off in a building that collapsed, or the bomb started a stampede that killed a lot of people. Even in crowded Iraqi marketplaces, for example, single bombs much more commonly got 5-20 people.

[BigSqwert]

This is a silly argument. Change the location to a sporting event, have 3-4 bombers act collectively and you have THOUSANDS of victims, not 100. It's the same idea. There's hardly any security in any other aspect of our daily lives yet getting on an airplane changes the game.

Because it's a completely reactive approach on our end. We can only secure things/places that already have been used in an attack.

[BigSqwert]

Ok, so in the case where I'm 3 people behind the bomber...that's 3 people I have in front of me to absorb the force of the impact. Unless there is a very, very lo roof, the energy of the explosion is going to be concentrated most in the 9 people directly around the bomber...then the next layer out, there is a full set of people in the way to shield them. Some of them will probably get hit by flying material, but they're not likely to have their bodies torn apart by the impact. To first order, if you detonate in that area, you'll hit the people right around you very hard, but then those people will serve as something of a wall, blocking energy from hitting the layer of people behind them. Getting to that 2nd layer of people takes a very large quantity of explosives.

 

The other thing going on in most of the airports I've been in is very high ceilings. That first layer of people will have energy bounce off of them, but any energy directed upwards will keep going.

 

Killing a lot of people in that format takes a large quantity of explosives. There's a reason why, in countries with serious terrorist problems, when you hear of death tolls in the hundreds, it's because the bomb went off in a building that collapsed, or the bomb started a stampede that killed a lot of people. Even in crowded Iraqi marketplaces, for example, single bombs much more commonly got 5-20 people.

Well there ya have it folks. Terrorists can only attack us in two ways. First, at the actual airport but since that isn't as effective and can only kill dozens they will use the second tactic, boarding airplanes with bombs. Every other aspect of our lives will be terrorist free!

[Jenksismyhero]

Because it's a completely reactive approach on our end. We can only secure things/places that already have been used in an attack.

 

Oklahoma City and the first World Trade Center attack involved people walking/driving into buildings with bombs. Our reaction was sensible - metal detectors and more secure parking access. We didn't start strip searching everyone because of that. I get why right after 9/11 we became uber crazy about securing air travel, but there's no need for it anymore. Unless we become some paranoid state where everyone everywhere has to go through major security, we're just kidding ourselves.

[Balta1701]

Well there ya have it folks. Terrorists can only attack us in two ways. First, at the actual airport but since that isn't as effective and can only kill dozens they will use the second tactic, boarding airplanes with bombs. Every other aspect of our lives will be terrorist free!

What exactly are you arguing again? Because there are unsecured places, we shouldn't care whether or not the airports are secured ones? Why are we back down this road?

[BigSqwert]

What exactly are you arguing again? Because there are unsecured places, we shouldn't care whether or not the airports are secured ones?

Metal detectors and bag scanners are security. We are crossing the line now for something that will not prevent anything.

[Balta1701]

Metal detectors and bag scanners are security. We are crossing the line now for something that will not prevent anything.

Really, the whole point of this effort is that it's going after these small, skin-lining explosives, of the type we've seen done a couple times now. It isn't perfect (yet), I will grant that, but what is the alternative...continuing to hope that they can't get the fuse right?

 

Like it or not, a plane is a much more tempting target than almost anything else you can envision. With a small (but non-trivial) amount of explosives, you can get several hundred guaranteed casualties. Without other ingredients like gas, that level of damage is almost impossible anywhere else, unless you hit a place with its own structural deficiency.

[BigSqwert]

Like it or not, a plane is a much more tempting target than almost anything else you can envision.

 

Union station, any major sports event (Think Televised!), shopping malls, marathon, places of worship, etc. And those are just to name a few. And there are almost no security safeguards for any of them.

[Balta1701]

Union station, any major sports event (Think Televised!), shopping malls, marathon, places of worship, etc. And those are just to name a few. And there are almost no security safeguards for any of them.

But one common feature of every one that you cite is...you need a non-trivially large amount of explosive to do significant damage; the level of high-explosive that you could easily conceal on your skin or in a purse will cause a heckuva panic, but it won't kill a lot of people on its own. In all of them, you're talking large backpack levels of material required, and large backpacks stand out.

 

That said, there are things that probably need to be done to harden those targets as well.

[BigSqwert]

In all of them, you're talking large backpack levels of material required, and large backpacks stand out.

Why large backpacks? Why not 5 or 6 suicide bombers that each have a smaller backpack? Since there's almost no security at any of the places I mentioned this shouldn't be difficult to accomplish.

[Balta1701]

Why large backpacks? Why not 5 or 6 suicide bombers that each have a smaller backpack? Since there's almost no security at any of the places I mentioned this shouldn't be difficult to accomplish.

5-6 suicide bombers? Now you're talking a very large commitment of resources. 5-6 suicide bombers getting on 5-6 planes and just taking out those planes and you're talking 500-1000 casualties, compared to 50 to a couple hundred people at even the most crowded of event, with a much, much greater likelihood that one of them will be caught and the plot exposed.

[BigSqwert]

5-6 suicide bombers? Now you're talking a very large commitment of resources. 5-6 suicide bombers getting on 5-6 planes and just taking out those planes and you're talking 500-1000 casualties, compared to 50 to a couple hundred people at even the most crowded of event, with a much, much greater likelihood that one of them will be caught and the plot exposed.

You're assuming they'd still target planes where there is some level of security. There is virtually no security in the other scenarios I mentioned. And heck, some of those things are televised so they'd get a lot of bang for their buck...pardon the pun.

[Jenksismyhero]

5-6 suicide bombers? Now you're talking a very large commitment of resources. 5-6 suicide bombers getting on 5-6 planes and just taking out those planes and you're talking 500-1000 casualties, compared to 50 to a couple hundred people at even the most crowded of event, with a much, much greater likelihood that one of them will be caught and the plot exposed.

 

You really think a 5-6 bombs in a crowd of 100k will only kill 50 to a couple hundred people?

 

And you're still not addressing the fact that even with these new measures there are ways around it. Which again, will just lead to the inevitable cavity search of "suspected persons."

 

[BigSqwert]

And Balta, my whole beef is that there is little incremental gain from the new scanners and pat down procedures. What we give up to get that incremental gain is not even remotely worth the .0001% better security we get out of it. I'm fine with the metal detector and bag scans.

 

EDIT: Did anyone bother to do a cost benefit analysis on any of this before they decided to roll with it? Seems like the costs heavily outweigh the benefits.

Edited November 22, 2010 by BigSqwert

[jasonxctf]

they should keep using those "puffer" machines.