Hi Rick. Good points, but remember how 9-11 happened. 5 guys per plane (4 on one of the four) who entered the US legally with proper documentation used box cutters and assorted short blade knives to create havoc in the cabin, forcing the crews to open the door to the flight deck and took over the controls.Instead of whining about and disparaging Homeland Security, try to remember how you felt on 9-11-01. While (by definition) nothing is fail-safe, I think there's a far less likely chance of it ever happening again because of the security measures now in effect at airports.
In that case all they had to do was strengthen the door to the cockpit (which was done immediately), keep it locked and in case of trouble land the plane at the nearest airport to let the local constabulary handle things from there. Simple solution, practical and efficient. Then we hear about pilots wanting guns. OK, quick observation, but to use that gun, wouldn't they have to open the new locked and reinforced door...? OK, so we have a gun in the cabin. Now, let me assure you that taking a gun off someone who does not know what they are doing is ridiculously easy. After that there was talk of more Sky Marshals being hired. Even if you do have training as a Sky Marshall, attacking him with multiple people in a coordinated effort (especially when one or two are willing to die for that weapon) is a done deal. So now they have access to the cockpit and have a Sig-Sauer hand delivered. I know what Moose was saying about swarming a guy with a box cutter, but a hand gun is a different story. Old Russian proverb: A man with a machine gun can control one hundred men without; as long as they think he is willing to use it.
After 9-11 on the first day that flights resumed, the TSA had new ultra-tight security. A guy boarding a plane at LAX handed a stewardess a loaded hand gun from his carry on bags sheepishly apologizing saying he had "forgotten" it was there.
Today, you can legally carry safety razors in your carry on. Rigging up a handle to wield them is dirt simple. Poof we have a 'box cutter' and that puts us right back where we started. Presently, the threat is liquid explosives so folks are asked to only take no more than 3 oz of fluid onto planes. OK, so purely hypothetically, a guy can pack 8 containers with 3 oz. each labeled hand cream, shampoo, etc. Then he gets four of his buddies to bring 8 each as well. OK, so they now have 5 X 8 X 3 = 120 oz or the equivalent to 10 soda cans. Well, 2 cans would probably be enough to vaporize a plane at altitude so they only need to bring two containers each.
No one is saying take away all security and let people take home-made napalm on board as carry-on. However, the general feeling is that things have been taken way too far for no practical return. There are pieces of equipment that can find the smallest quantities of liquid explosives, and guns and other threats, but you need pros who can interpret the results to be effective. Europe uses professional security firms to work their airports. These companies don't employ minimum wage earners. They use former special forces, police and other professionals. People who are used to spotting troublemakers before the excrement hits the rotating impeller.
However, the cost would be several billion dollars to outfit all of the airports with these wonder gizmo's. The US is currently unable to fund that. I am sure that when they stop spending 180 billion a year for an unspecified foreign war they may be able to spruce up the homestead in a more practical way. Might even improve security overall to stop ticking off that unspecified part of the world as well.
9-11 was a day of tragedy. To avoid future instances all they had to do was reinforce the doors, keep them locked and land the planes in case of trouble. Instead they generated a costly system where regular tax paying and law abiding citizens can be spied upon, their communications monitored, they can be detained or arrested and held indefinitely on unproven suspicions and have potential threats like Cat Stevens deported because of unproven ties to 'terrorism'.
So my original question stands. Do you feel any safer...?
