Trouser-bomb clown attacks - how much should we laugh?

[FarCenter]

By Lewis Page, 8th January 2010 14:37 GMT
The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/08/mutallab_comment/

As the smoke clears following the case of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the failed Christmas Day "underpants bomber" of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 fame, there are just three simple points for us Westerners to take away.

First: It is completely impossible to prevent terrorists from attacking airliners.

Second: This does not matter. There is no need for greater efforts on security.

Third: A terrorist set fire to his own trousers, suffering eyewateringly painful burns to what Australian cricket commentators sometimes refer to as the "groinal area", and nobody seems to be laughing. What's wrong with us?

We'll look at the first part to begin with.

In order to destroy an airliner and kill everyone on board, one needs to do a certain amount of damage to it: a lot if it is on the ground without much fuel in it, not so much if it is fuelled up, less yet if it is flying at low altitude, and least of all if it is flying high up.

Formerly there was the option of gaining access to the flight deck - perhaps using the aircraft as a weapon, as on 9/11, perhaps to carry out a hostage strategy - but those days are gone. The 9/11 hijackers have seen to it that the best and most effective ways for terrorists to employ airliners are no longer open to them. Pilots will never open flight deck doors again, no matter the threat to hostages in the cabin; passengers will not permit themselves to be dominated; armed sky marshals are back. If all these fail, following the bloodbath at Ground Zero fighter pilots will not hesitate to shoot.

So the damage must nowadays be done by other means than crashing, most practically by detonating a charge of high explosives on the plane while in flight. This doesn't need to be too big, especially if the jet is at cruising height so that the explosive effects will be enhanced by depressurisation. This is why airliners are a favourite target: because a fairly small amount of explosive can potentially kill a large number of people in one go, which is not the case under most circumstances.

It is an unfortunate and pretty much unavoidable fact that the necessary amount of explosives can easily be carried through any current or likely-future airport security regime, short of universal strip + cavity searches and a total ban on carry-on luggage.

<SNIP>

[kenny blankenship]

1. Right then, cavity searches it is. No carry on luggage for anyone,

but, because we are the society that respects the individual, everyone gets their own individually fitted handcuffs to restrain them in their seat for the duration of the flight. Naked. We appreciate that you have a choice in airlines, but really you do not really get any choice about flying. Either your employment will not require you to fly or it will and then you will be treated like a prisoner.

[crispini]

2. Very good article.

Worth reading. Thanks for posting!

And, for the record, I think the guy totally deserves to be called the underpants bomber, and it IS funny.

[FarCenter]

3. Thanks -- I thought it was a good antidote to the alarmist writing of the MSM

Particularly since it was written by a guy who formerly disarmed terrorist bombs in the UK.

[Edweird]

4. trouser bomber caught in the act....