You’ve touched on my issue with it - it’s an American organisation in America. Yet the TSA bullshit is contagious annf other countries have subscribed. It also makes things like passing through the US painful.
Yeah I guess the sensible thing for every other western nation would’ve been to watch the innovation of “plane hijackers are now both murderous and suicidal” and not make some changes to their security regime.
Also, yeah, air travel is a global system. Are you proposing that we just let people fly from other countries with no security infrastructure to the US? And your view is that this somehow makes sense?
My issue is mainly that the security crap is applied when there is no connection to the US occurring.
If that poor security theatre stayed within US borders it would be more palatable to us outsiders, then we could make adjustments for that and carry on.
It’s so goofy when foreigners think the US is forcing other countries to do x y z things, like “have airport security.”
Your airports have security because your leaders learned the same things on 9/11 that the US did. The threat landscape changed immensely. Hijackings were not super uncommon, but they were never that dangerous because it’s hard to do much damage without killing yourself too.
What 9/11 revealed is that there are actually people who can be convinced to fly themselves into buildings on loaded aircraft, and yes I do think “there will be bomb dogs” and “there will be X-rays” etc are factored into bad actors’ thinking about how to commit bad actions.
Or, you know, I suppose you could think that there were only 19 people in the whole wide world who would’ve possibly done what they did and luckily we got rid of them all in one day.
Seems wishful to me though, given that we see thematically similar attacks on a weekly basis throughout the Muslim world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Huh somehow one of the closest US security allies, Five Eyes member NZ, isn’t subjugated by US security apparatus whims… almost like it has nothing to do with the US deciding other nations’ security regimes.
Yes there are dozens of suicide attacks per year, and yes they are overwhelmingly throughout the Muslim world (not merely the Middle East).
Security’s role is twofold: deterrence and prevention. You have no way of knowing what the deterrent effects are, which is why I asked if you’re of the belief that there were only 19 people willing to do what happened on 9/11 and we just happened to get rid of them all on the same day.
I appear to misinterpreted what you said. Your initial comment appeared to me to be a reference to flying a hijacked plane into a building and that isn’t happening that often.
Suicide attacks in general are common. Never talked about in the same context is the lone angry man with a gun as that is somehow that is unsolvable in the US.
Fascinating how the TSA overreach and ineffectiveness is somehow required, yet the terror inflicted by the domestic problem of gunmen is not able to be addressed. Is it not terrorism?
Do you believe the TSA is effective? The Department of Homeland Security don’t.
What on earth are you on about? Is this just “USA has problems argh argh”?
The reason the gun issue is hard to solve is extremely, extremely obvious. The early designers of our country wrote specific words on a particularly important document. Agree or disagree with those words or think they should be changed or whatever you want, the “why” of it being difficult to fix is self-evident to anyone who can read English though.
Huh… DHS says TSA fails 95% of penetration tests.
Let’s try two interpretations:
1) DHS thinks TSA is “ineffective” (your interpretation) and yet continues to commit $9B+ per year to it for… no reason? Because they don’t have other programs to fund instead? To soothe the public while simultaneously publishing the 95% figure?
2) DHS views TSA as one component of a risk-based “defense in depth” strategy and thinks its contributions to that overall system, despite failing most actual penetration tests, is worth $9B+ per year.
You know if you got over the “USA stupid bad mean” the world would be a lot more interpretable.
> Your airports have security because your leaders learned the same things on 9/11 that the US did.
I have to imagine that politics and power plays also contributed to these changes, as they did with the creation of Homeland Security, the apparent changes in surveillance, the uptick in militarization of police forces, the apparent changes in our attitudes toward incarceration, interrogation, and torture of suspected terrorists, and so on.
When irrationality takes over, people want to feel safe more than they care about being safe. So, as a politician, if I want to achieve and maintain a high approval rating, I must attend to people's beliefs more than I must attend to their needs.
Thus, if other world leaders enact hardline policies and I am a leader in a country where my constituents are innumerate, illiterate, ignorant, or civically uninvolved, then following the lead of a strongman country is a shortcut to achieving my political ends. And in these cases, if other world leaders make these changes and I choose to do nothing, even if doing nothing is the right course of action, I should probably expect my approval rating to drop.
> Thus, if other world leaders enact hardline policies and I am a leader in a country where my constituents are innumerate, illiterate, ignorant, or civically uninvolved,
And I suppose this is meant to describe pretty much every European and Asian country?
