> It's a lot harder to murder hundreds of people with a bomb elsewhere
Not really. Honestly the best places are probably TSA checkpoints considering how slow and clogged they get. In almost any amusement park during the summer (one of the reasons Disney searches all bags and has undercover security everywhere). Time Square at various times.
Yes exploding on a plane likely kills 100+ at once but in all honestly I would imagine it's far easier to do it elsewhere you just might need a tiny bit more explosive material.
And now I'm thoroughly depressed. Life is so fragile...well on the scale I care about.
That's not borne out by actual attacks. The recent airport bombings didn't kill as many people as a single airplane. I'm tempted to blame it on incompetence, but we shouldn't deny the facts.
Are you sure? The majority of largest terrorist attacks, casualty wise, didn't even involve a plane except for September 11th attacks (obviously several did but not the majority) [1].
> The recent airport bombings didn't kill as many people as a single airplane. I'm tempted to blame it on incompetence, but we shouldn't deny the facts.
That airport bombing was very different than the suggested TSA security line hypothetical as the airports in Istanbul work fundamentally different (I addressed in the other comment).
What facts am I denying? I always try to base my opinion around only facts.
Sorry not accusing you of denying facts. I was referring to my suggestion that bombings at security lines were less fatal due to incompetence. As in, I agree that security lines should be high-fatality, but in reality it seems attackers have problems carrying it out.
Airplanes might not be targeted as much, but that wiki link shows they are the most deadly per bomb. The other high-fatality bombings were multiple bombs.
In the end, my point is that despite the concern for security lines, they don't seem to end up being the massive disaster they could be. Certainly they are not worse than the airplane attacks they seek to prevent, which is the main point.
We have evidence that it's much harder though -- Just last month, 3 terrorists with automatic weapons and suicide bombs tried to inflict as much damage as possible and "only" killed 45 people in Istanbul. The Lockerbie bomber used a small cassette player filled with Semtex to kill 243 people -- aided by 90,000kg of jet fuel and 31,000ft of gravity.
If those terrorists showed up to a US security line (Which, unlike Istanbul, does not check for weapons at the entrance to the airport), the casualty count would have been far higher.
> Just last month, 3 terrorists with automatic weapons and suicide bombs tried to inflict as much damage as possible and "only" killed 45 people in Istanbul.
Fundamentally different than the TSA lines I referenced. In Istanbul they have two security checkpoints, one brief one at the entrance to the airport itself and another further in similar to the TSA. The attackers mostly pushed their way through the first one and it ended up being a choke point for them. They didn't get near where the bulk of the people were.
> The Lockerbie bomber used a small cassette player filled with Semtex to kill 243 people -- aided by 90,000kg of jet fuel and 31,000ft of gravity.
Hence why I didn't discount it. Attempting to brings explosives onto a plane and setting them off seems like a far more difficult task than doing it in an area with a similar people concentration and zero people checking your bags.
It's not about the body count. It's about instilling fear and confidence in the government.
The US government's approach is pretty obvious is to attempt to prevent attacks through various means (reducing risks at airpoint checkpoints, keeping tabs on ammonium nitrate sales, etc), pursing investigations of people deemed vulnerable to terrorist manipulation, and blunting the impact of anything that does happen. When you watch the public coverage when something happens, there's a few common narratives, and they are always focused on portraying the offenders as loners who "aren't taking orders" from anyone.
Jet fuel played a negligible role in the Lockerbie attacks, other than elevating the target to where pressure and airstream would rip the hull to shreds.
The initial bomb damage was a 50cm (20in) hole. Disruption of control systems (steering and stabilizer cables) lead to a pitch of the aircraft, aerodynamic forces of a 500kph (313 kn) airstream tore off the nose of the aircraft, parts of which impacted with and initiated further disintegration of trailing portions.
Again: fuel did not contribute to the damage inflicted on the aircraft.
Not really. Honestly the best places are probably TSA checkpoints considering how slow and clogged they get. In almost any amusement park during the summer (one of the reasons Disney searches all bags and has undercover security everywhere). Time Square at various times.
Yes exploding on a plane likely kills 100+ at once but in all honestly I would imagine it's far easier to do it elsewhere you just might need a tiny bit more explosive material.
And now I'm thoroughly depressed. Life is so fragile...well on the scale I care about.