The rationale is that the potential damage is higher with a flight. Bombing a bus/metro might a dozen or so people. Bombing a plane can easily kill hundreds.
I remember seeing a documentary showing how in Israeli airport one of the main goals was to always avoid long lines and big groups of people.
Context: "a controversial level in the 2009 video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. In the level, the player can participate in a mass shooting at a Russian airport.".
Would it be okay for police to stop suspicious-looking people on the streets and ask them for ID and run background checks if it caught criminals 50% of the time?
Remember the German pilot who crashed on purpose? Good thing they had ids on everyone.
So we should just let anyone into a plane with no screening at all?
If you disagree with the premise that ID screening is 100% useless, then dig up some evidence of its effectiveness.
Identity is extremely easy to fake. If you are planning in such a way that you have a realistic chance of hijacking a plane, getting a fake ID good enough to fool the two-second check at the TSA checkpoint is the least of your problems.
There is some argument that a properly built luggage and human screening system could actually prevent weapons from making it on the plane. But ID doesn't really come into it.
But even if we can't develop a system that prevents weapons from getting on planes, it doesn't follow the id checks would be a suitable alternative.
I never said it was.
Everyone tells me the TSA can't even stop bombs or guns from being brought on, so let's skip that.
ID doesn't help, so let's skip that.
So my question is - do we just let people board without any checks at all?
But Israel, who is clearly a major target for airline bombings hasn't had one in what? 50 years?
But yes, they interview heavily.