That isn't really what that test is about. They don't think there's a 99% or even 80% chance that it's a bomb. They think there might be a 0.0001% chance that it's a bomb so they're going to test (along with hundreds, thousands and eventually millions of others that nobody thinks might be bomb) just to put off anybody thinking that this is an effective way to smuggle a bomb onto a plane.
Let say you are a terrorist, would you try to bring a bomb through security like that?
Situation A: They mostly never check bags because they need to close the airport for it.
Situation B: They mostly check bags.
Just increasing the odds of being checked is a deterrent.
> A bomb in a security checkpoint is just as, if not more, scary and deadly.
Is it really? I'm not that good in physic but a plane that explode, or that's hijacked does at least 100 deaths, and has the potential to do even more. Could you do that at a security checkpoint?
> Let say you are a terrorist, would you try to bring a bomb through security like that? Situation A: They mostly never check bags because they need to close the airport for it. Situation B: They mostly check bags.
B doesn't exist though. The TSA has an abysmal record of passing tests. They mostly don't check bags, and if they did check one with a bomb, the attacker could make it go kaboom. You don't think that would make the public fearful? "Bomb at Security Checkpoint" as a headline would be terrifying to most people.
> Is it really? I'm not that good in physic but a plane that explode, or that's hijacked does at least 100 deaths, and has the potential to do even more. Could you do that at a security checkpoint?
Have you ever been to a security checkpoint? At a larger airport there is easily hundreds of people in line, usually in a confined space.
Probably but my point is all about fear of getting caught before succeeding. Does the truth matter as much as the fear?
> You don't think that would make the public fearful? "Bomb at Security Checkpoint" as a headline would be terrifying to most people.
Well finding a bomb doesn't mean it will actually explode and as long as the number of death is way smaller, they would have way better target than that (one that doesn't have a ton of security guards and multiple layer to stop you).
> Have you ever been to a security checkpoint? At a larger airport there is easily hundreds of people in line, usually in a confined space.
I haven't no but by what I see they aren't in confined space, the walls are far away, and they are one in front of the other, acting like human shield.
> Probably but my point is all about fear of getting caught before succeeding.
My point is that the fall back is not "go to jail", the fall back would be "blow up the security line."
Also, are random chemical checks (which are looking for something very rare by sampling a very small population, hmmmm) any more helpful than the screenings that are also taking place, notably X-ray imaging?
> Does the truth matter as much as the fear?
No, it matters much less it seems :(
> Well finding a bomb doesn't mean it will actually explode
In context, the hypothetical headline meant a bomb had gone off.
> as the number of death is way smaller, they would have way better target than that (one that doesn't have a ton of security guards and multiple layer to stop you).
Smaller than what? 50 people vs 100? 100 vs 200? it's still a terrible thing and will have a very similar affect on the public.
> I haven't no but by what I see they aren't in confined space, the walls are far away,
Most of the ones I've been in are basically tunnels are bridges 100' or so across. Sometimes the lines themselves pour out into the rest of the terminal, which is less confined.
> and they are one in front of the other, acting like human shield.
I honestly couldn't tell you how people squashed together would work, from a physics perspective, but I don't think it's pretty or clean regardless.
This all detracts from the main topic: their scanning procedures are antithetical (and statistically suspect) to the handling (and rarity) of what they're looking for.
I will reiterate my point. What I'm saying is that it's a security theater, it's there so terrorist are afraid of being stopped. That's how I feel TSA work right now.
> My point is that the fall back is not "go to jail", the fall back would be "blow up the security line."
Yeah I understood that point, that's exactly why I said succeeding. You can get caught, thus you are stopped and can't do your plan, probably for ever.
> Also, are random chemical checks (which are looking for something very rare by sampling a very small population, hmmmm) any more helpful than the screenings that are also taking place, notably X-ray imaging?
I don't know, my whole point is that the fear of getting caught and not actually killing the number of people you want to kill, or hijacking the plane you were supposed to can be a deterrent. The more you increase that fear (by increasing checkpoint), the more it's a deterrent.
> No, it matters much less it seems :(
As long as they believe they can get caught, isn't it enough?
> In context, the hypothetical headline meant a bomb had gone off.
10 deaths, 50 victims in the hospital is clearly less fearful than, "Plane hijacked because of a bomb on board, 200 deaths, still counting...".
> Smaller than what? 50 people vs 100? 100 vs 200? it's still a terrible thing and will have a very similar affect on the public.
I'm curious, in your hypothetical situation what would be the alternative? That bomb wouldn't be on board of the plane? Sure it's a terrible thing... but the alternative is worst...
> Most of the ones I've been in are basically tunnels are bridges 100' or so across. Sometimes the lines themselves pour out into the rest of the terminal, which is less confined.
Yeah in theses cases that's not a good idea, any crowded place in a confined space are bad idea too...
> This all detracts from the main topic: their scanning procedures are antithetical (and statistically suspect) to the handling (and rarity) of what they're looking for.
Yeah I'm not saying they are not, again that wasn't my point at all.
From a statics point of view, there are no terrorists. But let's assume there are, only a dumb one would be afraid of being caught in line.
But let us suppose you are right, TSA deters the boogeyman. So instead he will just attack something else. But were are all these attacks? Why do we assume only planes will be attacked?
> only a dumb one would be afraid of being caught in line
Really? You begin to say they are statically insignificant and then follow by saying they wouldn't care with failed operations. That doesn't seems like an intelligent solution when you doesn't have much opportunities. I'm pretty sure by giving your life you would hope to kill more than a few dozen people... which you can do pretty much anywhere.
Sadly, any potential solutions will always seems like they aren't effective because of the likelihood of an attack.
> Why do we assume only planes will be attacked?
Who assume that? I don't...
All we can do is minimize the ratio effort:death, that include not having a huge crowd in a confined space. I remember a documentary about train technology to limit death in trains, I don't remember the conclusion, but the goal wasn't to stop explosion, just to limit death. Sure any death is bad but no solution will be perfect.
TSA was not created in response to unforesern attacks on airplanes creating a new percroved need (those happened before) but to unforeseen use of airliners as weapons. Other transportation systems may be equally attractive as targets, but few, if any, are equally exploitable as weapons.
Have you ever been to a security checkpoint? At a larger airport there is easily hundreds of people in line, usually in a confined space
Absolutely. Some of the security lines at an airport like O'Hare are crowded enough that you could easily take out 100 people (or more) with a bomb sitting 2 feet from the TSA agent's podium. All of this TSA stuff, even if it were effective, would only be effective at moving the problem, not at eliminating it. Any smart terrorist in 2015 would look at this situation and say "let me detonate my bomb in the security line" instead of even bothering trying to get it on a plane. An even smarter terrorist might blow the bomb up in a movie theater or at a football game.
It would still be fairly easily to smuggle a bomb through security. But it would be even easier to smuggle it in through one of the other entry points into the airport. Or just build a bomb with stuff found on the inside.
