How many planes would blow up?

[jpgray]

If we didn't take off our shoes, and didn't have anybody scrutinizing fuzzy blue naked people on a screen, what would be the effect? My thoughts since 2001 have always been, "at least security is thorough." With every extra wrinkle in the policy, taking off shoes, packing 3 oz. toiletries, etc., I've thought this. So in each iteration, I was wrong--it wasn't thorough enough. Is it thorough enough this time? Or are we going to be looking at a new process down the road, where again I will think "at least security is thorough?"

Saying "let it slide, it's probably fine" would require more political courage than I think exists. If I were czar of the universe, I'd feel a bit worried deciding to lessen security, knowing any disaster that might have been detected would be blamed on me. Is there a chance for significant rollback in the foreseeable future, do you think?

[hlthe2b]

1. Courageous change of policy requires the American people first

be educated on evidence-based policy. What has been shown to work and what has not. What evidence there is that a new procedure would work. Why is it or is it not being already adopted by others around the world. As with the health care debate, it is this education piece that is missing. Granted we have obstacles with a lazy or biased media. But, nonetheless, that is what has to happen. Obama administration has to stake out a position, advocate for that position, educate based on that positon, and they will prevail. As much as it pains me to say it, GWB* and his ilck did a good job at that very thing and were successful in moving public opinion around even bad policy that way..

[leveymg]

2. The procedures change because the bombers adapt. The bombers adapt because the procedures change -

Sadly, this cycle goes on until people give up trying to blow up airliners, or the American people just stop caring about that, anymore.

I can't see the end of this, unfortunately.

[alsame]

7. Right. And what happens when they adapt and start

targeting other areas to blow up? Malls? Banks? Restaurants? Trains?

A real good way to paralyze a country is to make people afraid to go anywhere. And then how do we react - will we have to be scanned or patted down every time we go anywhere public?

[leveymg]

9. One should expect that if we or the Israelis bomb Iran, that is exactly what will happen.

It's one the reasons we haven't done it.

[alsame]

10. We already had the failed Times Square bombing...a few more of

those street attempts or threats of bombs in other public places and I can't imagine what kind of security will be required.

[Angry Dragon]

15. Electrical sub stations, water supplies

How many of these have armed guards??

[alsame]

16. And nuke plants. nt

[Angry Dragon]

17. They do have a lot of security

[alsame]

18. I'm glad to hear it. I have family that live near a plant and I

always worry about them.

[customerserviceguy]

19. You've hit upon an important truth

John Allen Muhammad and his boy wonder, Lee Malvo, almost paralyzed the DC area of the country. If they had only had independent financing, and not made a grab for some money, they might still be on the loose, shooting people from their car.

We have to live like persons, not cower like sheep.

[stray cat]

3. If you are the small percentage that blows up would it be worth it?

percentages mean little if you end up on the wrong side of them!

[Fleshdancer]

4. Good question

I have no idea, but I do know that we all take bigger risks driving to the airport than we do boarding a plane. It's ironic to think that the people who support the new scans and groping in the name of "safety" probably don't think twice before engaging in dangerous activity like answering their cell phones and/or texting while driving.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. It's not about the probability of being killed versus the cost of security checks

You have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist on an airplane. The problem is that 9/11 did a lot more than kill people at the WTC and the Pentagon. We wound up fighting two wars because of it (one of which we are still fighting) and there have been numerous other effects including the security screenings.

The way we collectively react to terrorism isn't proportional to the actual destruction it does. That's why it is so effective.

[hobbit709]

6. And our reaction proves Bin Laden won.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. I don't think Bin Laden's objective was to simply scare people and make them overreact

I think his objective was probably to overthrow King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia with an internal rebellion and place himself on the throne. He also wanted to overthrow Mubarak and put his allies in power in Egypt.

[laughingliberal]

11. If they hate us for our freedoms, they can relax now. nt

[treestar]

12. Oh BS.

They don't begin to have the freedom we do.

If their countries wanted patdowns, they would not be able to whinge about it on the internet or anywhere without facing consequences.

[laughingliberal]

14. I repeat if they hated us for our freedoms, they can relax.

Patriot Act and the erosion of the FISA laws took care of all that.

It's not about their freedoms, it's about ours and they're gone.

Or were you OK with all the erosion during the Bush years and Bush calling the Constitution 'just a damned piece of paper?'

[treestar]

13. It would only take one

And the M$M would be all over it - why didn't the government stop it?

I've just been reading a lot of 911 stuff. It is full of failures of the government. Every little mistake or failure to transmit information is implied to be at fault.

Only those who admit up front that the government should take no blame and not have to pay a red cent to a terrorism victim are entitled to claim that any procedure is too much for them.