Hacker News Reader

This reasoning is a classic example of "we must do something; this is something; therefor, we must do it."

You identify a danger, but do not tie the 'solution' of ID to how it mitigates the danger, what the tradeoffs are, and why it is a superior solution to other options.

No one asked whether this was the right solution. They only asked why a solution is needed. That's a fair question, but it's not what I was asked :)

I think we disagree on whether a solution is needed, though. No one's going to be able to use an airplane as a missile again, since cockpits are locked. No passengers will sit idly by while someone with a knife tries to do something, and any benefit of securing planes is completely dwarfed by the giant crowd of vulnerable people in the not-yet-screened lines.

Not only does this solution not solve the problem (unless you consider the problem to be "get re-elected" or "make my election contributors money"), but it centralizes vulnerabilities and makes any destructive event both more dangerous and easier to carry out.

> any benefit of securing planes is completely dwarfed by the giant crowd of vulnerable people in the not-yet-screened lines

Sounds like a problem, we'd better start screening people before they get in line for screening

But it is true of other means of transportation! Blow up a movie theater on friday (without pandemic), poison the air in a cruise ship, blow up a subway, and so on. Heck, do enough damage to the right section of highway during a busy time and I'm guessing you can do a number. Pretty much anywhere that can hold a large group of people is a place you can kill hundreds.

See my comment below, it's actually very hard to kill people with bombs, even when you really pack them together and use multiple devices.

Possibly, but that isn't impossible. The Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people, after all. If I can come up with a bunch of situations that seem likely, I'm sure other folks can too. Folks that actually know how to do stuff and are motivated to do so.

Congratulations on being added to a bunch of government databases! ;-)

1 person can kill 100s of others in the airport lobby really easily.

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...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

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.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/15/truck-bomb-mog...

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/21/asia/sri-lanka-explosions/ind...

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...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Lockerbie_re...

Derailing a high speed trains typically kill around 100 people, which is about the typical passenger count for a 737.

100 tends to be the worse case scenario for derailments, usually on trains carrying 1000s, but I take your point. However, most derailments are not caused from onboard the train, they're caused from interference on track (usually negligence rarely intentional), so there would be little point checking passengers.

Derailing a train is _very_ difficult for a passenger.

It's pretty easy for anyone who can get on the tracks though.

That makes no sense and is similar to saying, "more people can fit into a truck compared to how many can sit on a motorcycle, therefore show your ID to get into a truck."

A person can kill hundreds or thousands of others, regardless of there being any transportation - thats MORE people than can be killed on a plane.

You could go through security without providing id. If I recall correctly that's the case in most EU airports I have been to. I have been asked for id only by the airline at the gate after security or by border control on international flights.

> People keep suggesting you could achieve the same result by:

A single well placed and timed explosion on London Underground could easily take out 100s. Hell, Euston or Kings Cross on a Friday is the same. With multiple bombers, you get easily get into the 1000s.

Plus if you pick your Underground target(s) sensibly, you could cripple a large portion of London's public transport for months.

With 4 bombers in a football stadium, you could probably get 1000s without even thinking about it.

Did you read the rest of my comment? 3 such explosions plus another on a bus failed to get 60...

Yes but they are not as crowded as stations - especially if there's a hiccup in the schedules; cf [1] and [2]

[1] https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-of-train-passengers-str... [2] https://london.web2ua.com/london-is-crippled-by-commuter-cha...

a bomb in a major train or bus terminal would be similarly devastating. a regional jet does not itself carry many more passengers than a train or double-deck bus. the thing that makes planes special is that, if hijacked, they can be flown into a large building to cause many more fatalities. even if someone is able to smuggle a weapon onboard, this is considered to be much more difficult than it was in 2001.

Interestingly bombs in major stations are much much less effective. The 7/7 attack in London killed "just" 56 people with 4 devices used on packed transport systems. A single device on a 737 could reliably kill 150 people in one go. Bombs in crowded locations seem to be quite ineffective compared to bombs at 30k feet...

I saw your other comment after posting this. I checked against a wikipedia list of recent terror attacks and I am mostly convinced. the only attacks with comparable death counts from a single bomb seem to be car bombs, which I gather are considerably more difficult to source material for and deliver in a developed country.

Yeah, I always thought this too. Like, maybe planes are more "glamours" target that's slightly better in numbers terms? Then I commented here and had to back it up and the numbers are crazy. I'm a bit surprised governments have signed off on the increase in size from 747s (450ish) to A380s (850ish).

If the reason for all this stuff is that a single person can kill hundreds of people, an obvious solution would be to only have the security procedures on flights of more than 100 people.

I think we already do. Small planes (2 and 4 seater) don't require any of this do they? And private plane's passengers (up to about 20) can pretty much drive onto the runway and go. It's only public, over 20 seater planes that have requirements. And that's right around the number where it becomes a tempting target...

Not to mention thousands more on the ground.

That's not so easy anymore, now that the cockpit doors are secure, and passengers know better than to cooperate. There have been several cases where passengers disabled real or apparent terrorists.