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.
> 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.