New airport scanners.

[gtmtnbiker]

No other country in the entire world puts their citizens through this.

The US is probably the biggest target in the world for the terrorists. Israel is probably the second one.

[AppleQueso]

And yet the only terrorist attacks I can remember were those failed bombings and 9/11.

[Ivo]

Before planes, there were boats. You can still take a boat across the ocean if you so desire. Or change your job to not require flying.

For all of those who criticize these increased security measures, what do you propose should be done? Nothing?

(...)

Instead of bitching/moaning about something, let's hear some realistic solutions.

Realistic solutions like taking a boat instead of a plane for business trips?
Before there were planes (and people took boats), business was conducted differently, and the world was adapted to not having planes.

The world today is NOT adapted to not having planes (something which I think should give us all more concern). A great example of this was how incredibly disrupting the Iceland volcano cloud over Europe was. I wish politicians and people had taken that as a wake-up call to make a serious effort to improve railroads and so on (in the U.S. I'm not convinced railroads are effective as there is huge tracts of land without population that would steel need to have rails laid down - not so cost-effective, perhaps).

Anyway, I happen to think it is a realistic situation to keep security at reasonable levals. Metal detectors and dogs seem reasonably non-invasive to the majority of the population and I believe can prevent most non-professional problems. "Professional" terrorists are always going to find ways around whatever measures you put in place - that is the way of the game. There are several open seurity holes that are not patched by these "increased security measures".

There are some measures that really seem to lack in common sense and are just for show -
the ban on liquids is a joke that seems like it is kept in place due to economic interests. Having nail clippers confiscated is non-sensical.

Next-up:
Martial artists must fly restrained because they are more dangerous unarmed than someone with a nail clipper.
User electronics with batteries must go in the baggage hold so that you can't cause fires by shorting them.
Airplanes no longer have emergency exits because someone could open one in mid-flight and it would suck out the flight-attendants.
Cavity searches (these scanners only go skin deep, right...)

Ivo.

[Ivo]

And yet the only terrorist attacks I can remember were those failed bombings and 9/11.

There were several more that you don't remember, obviously... There was a major one in Spain to say the least. And there is lot of terrorism not related to 9/11 issues in many places of the world as well.

Also, if you count random mortars to non-military targets terrorism, I think they get that like every day in Israel, and the Israel army is happy to do the same to non-military targets in Palestine occasionally (I'm not questioning it or judging it - this is a complex issue on both sides).

By the way, even if you could make flying safe from terrorism (these increased security measures won't) the terrorists can still target soemthing else (the planes only make good targets because they are relatively frail, I think; I'm not a terrorist so I wouldn't know for sure).

[AppleQueso]

And yet the only terrorist attacks I can remember were those failed bombings and 9/11.

There were several more that you don't remember, obviously... There was a major one in Spain to say the least. And there is lot of terrorism not related to 9/11 issues in many places of the world as well.

Also, if you count random mortars to non-military targets terrorism, I think they get that like every day in Israel, and the Israel army is happy to do the same to non-military targets in Palestine occasionally (I'm not questioning it or judging it - this is a complex issue on both sides).

By the way, even if you could make flying safe from terrorism (these increased security measures won't) the terrorists can still target soemthing else (the planes only make good targets because they are relatively frail, I think; I'm not a terrorist so I wouldn't know for sure).

I know that there's a lot of other terrorist activity abroad, I was referring to specifically the USA.

[Limewater]

You can still take a boat across the ocean if you so desire.

I'm not so sure about that. Try booking a boat trip to Japan and get back to me on how successful you are.

[gtmtnbiker]

You can still take a boat across the ocean if you so desire.

I'm not so sure about that. Try booking a boat trip to Japan and get back to me on how successful you are.

http://www.transitionsabroad.com/listin ... orld.shtml

[gtmtnbiker]

By the way, even if you could make flying safe from terrorism (these increased security measures won't) the terrorists can still target soemthing else (the planes only make good targets because they are relatively frail, I think; I'm not a terrorist so I wouldn't know for sure).

I agree that terrorists are always looking for new targets. That's why they're trying to beef up security in ports, infrastructure, etc. You won't be able to stop all future attacks but you can make it more difficult.

9/11 was very costly in terms of the damage to the travel industry, New York, Washington DC. Are you willing to risk another similar attack because you dislike these new security measures?

[Limewater]

I'm not so sure about that. Try booking a boat trip to Japan and get back to me on how successful you are.

http://www.transitionsabroad.com/listin ... orld.shtml

I am aware that some people still manage to book passage on cargo ships. However, I said, "Try booking a boat trip to Japan," not "find a webpage about traveling on cargo ships."

However, some relevant quotes from the page:

“Our trip from the USA to Europe changed three times after initial booking,” say Rebecca Hogue and Scott Drennan, currently on a journey around the world without using airplanes. Their initial trip from South Carolina to Belgium ended up being from Florida to Italy. “Had we not been flexible with our departure times and locations, things would not have worked out.”

American citizens are not permitted, for example, to travel within their country by cargo ship, although they can make international journeys. Meanwhile, travelers to the United States must have a visa, even if they would not need one to arrive by air. Only Canadians are exempt from this rule.

An upper age limit of 70-80 years is common as there is no doctor on board and plenty of stairs.

For Hamish Jamieson, the owner of Freighter Travel NZ and one of only a handful of travel agents in the world licensed to book tickets on cargo ships, the simplicity of being at sea is the main attraction.

[Ivo]

9/11 was very costly in terms of the damage to the travel industry, New York, Washington DC. Are you willing to risk another similar attack because you dislike these new security measures?

I happen to think that 9/11 was so costly not because the action itself but because the fear generated. I don't want to be insensitive but I have a feeling that the material costs of the planes and buildings and the number of lives (just considering numbers here, sorry) are negligible compared to just car accidents.

I thought I should emphasise that I can not share the particular understanding of having 9/11 happen and what an American feels about that as an American does, as I am not an American - cut me some slack there before you judge me as an insensitive fool, please. I'm responding directly to the "very costly" part. It was a huge shock to me personally even though I'm not from there, and I remember having a very bad feeling in particular of what would follow from there (turns out I wasn't so wrong, sadly).

It was the shock-wave of it happening, the flights cancelled, and the fear - starting from people travelling less up to and including these scanners that was very costly. So it seems a bit circular to say that we can't risk these costs again when implementing the higher security are the costs... And saying this in response to my call for being less paranoid about security when the costs are due to paranoia about security (flying less due to fear when it is so much safer than driving?).

I'm not suggesting people should just ignore the terrorist threat, but I think overreacting from the public (like what happened right after in 9/11 and these scanners) is basically the end goal of the terrorists. This is what they want IMO, and the governments seems to be giving it to them (due to the public accepting or even *wanting* to give up liberty due to their fear). The "terror" in terrorist is there for a reason. The people that died are dead, they don't fear them any more.

I think keeping up with intelligence is pretty sensible to cut any form of terrorism (planes or not). These scanners seem to be mostly for show, and I don't even know what the no-liquids rule is for other than forcing people to get their bottles from the airport stores (I must say I wonder how difficult in comparison it may be to smuggle the stuff into those stores - hopefully very difficult but they have so much stock just on display that I have trouble believing they can all be checked as thoroughly as the ones passengers carry on are).

Ivo.