Not so easily. E.g. after the Brussels airport attack the Zurich airport has increased the number of security gates open at any time and reduced the density of people queuing. I don’t think I have ever seen in the lat couple of years more than 100 people packed together. (Other airports are much worse and have lots of people in packed queues, but Zurich shows that it’s a problem that can be solved)
I agree, if you notice this problem and decide to solve it. I have seen queues in London theaters that had higher density in front of the theater than inside it, which kind of doesn't make sense if you want to discourage people form bombing large amounts of people.
> I don’t think I have ever seen in the lat couple of years more than 100 people packed together.
Let me introduce you to the (pre-pandemic) joys of London Transport. Any of Bank, Euston, Kings Cross, London Bridge at rush hour could have a couple of hundred packed together. Even more if you can cause a disruption in the train schedules by pulling a few alarms or chucking bricks on the line, etc.
1 person might injure 100s with a bomb (in an airport lobby or a stadium or a train station etc), but most will survive because they will get medical attention rapidly and won't fall 30,000 without a parachute.
The 7/7 bombings in London killed just 56 people (including 4 bombers) with 3 bombs in packed tube trains underground (plus a bus). Compare that to a half full 747 where you would get 100% casualties.
And that's without crashing the plane into something...
If a terrorist were actually strategic about maximizing damage they would always inflict far greater harm and never be stopped. You can fit probably 50lbs of tannerite (ammonium nitrate and some aluminum) and ball bearings into a large suitcase and walk into any airport lobby in the world.
They would never need to make it past a single layer of security to reach a line with hundreds of people in close proximity. But then you could also do this with trains, large hotels during business conferences, etc.
Any security expert will tell you that real evil isn't something you can protect people from. Fortunately, 99.9% of people aren't genuinely evil.
Although, it does make it clear that these security measures aren't about us, they're about protecting expensive property and reducing their liability once we get into that property.
Do you have an example of a motivated terrorist killing (say) 300 people with a single bomb in a well chosen crowd? I can't find one. The example I quote about is around 14 people per bomb for a very well chosen target for quite large devices.
For comparison, a small bomb on a near full 747 would kill 450 (plus people on the ground).
I think blowing up planes is just a really really efficient way to kill people compared to blowing up almost any other grouping of people...
>Fortunately, 99.9% of people aren't genuinely evil.
Very true. And those that are are generally more interested in making headlines than setting records for casualty numbers luckily...
[0] Not that long ago someone put a bomb in a truck and killed 300+ in Mogadishu. The article is horrific, however. They completely discount the possibility for planning, and they use terms like 'military grade' to make the explosive seem more technologically advanced than it would ever need to be. This was far from the Guardian's best work.
EDIT - [1] Added another article (about another attack) just to show that this is a recurring event, and because the first article was of poor quality.
> I think blowing up planes is just a really really efficient way to kill people compared to blowing up almost any other grouping of people...
It would be if you could get onto the plane every time, and if you were willing to die. Once the terrorist surrenders their bags to be scanned the attack is no longer under their control.
And then there's the suicide aspect. If it's as easy as walking in, a single terrorist can repeat their attack many times over. If they have to get on the plane, it's almost certainly going to be with small device that they take with them directly rather than a bag under the plane.
Getting a large bomb into the pre-security line at the airport is much easier then getting a small bomb onto a plane. Literally any asshole wearing a backpack can trivially do it. They don't even have to be smart, or lucky.
And nobody's going to hijack another airplane to crash into something, because since 9/11, cockpit doors have been reinforced.
Per my link above, 4 well placed, large bombs used in london killed 56 people. That's the same as a 737 at less than a third full.
Also, you should consider the lockerbie bombing: 11 ground casualties from an airliner that was blown up 31,000 feet above their small, spread out village. Now imagine the same thing, only over a packed park of London\NYC\Tokyo and from 5000 feet instead of 30,000...
