 sj |
||
|
||
Counter-Terrorism Measures
|
|
|
Subject: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Justa Picker Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:04 PM I was watching CNN late last night, and various people were discussing potential counter terrorism measures. One that was sent in by email to them which I thought was interesting, was the idea that all commercial jets be retrofitted with a vault like door, sealing those in the cockpit and making it inpenetrable. As well tv-like monitors within the cockpit, with hidden cameras and microphones within the passenger areas, give them the ability to see and hear all of the passengers and to be able to detect trouble. Once the trouble has been determined (assuming it is a hi-jacking in progress), a button is pushed in the cockpit and a harmless gas is released in all of the passenger sections, and everyone goes to sleep for the duration of the flight. 1 or 2 security people (also riding in the cockpit,) then go out into the passenger areas with oxygen masks on, disarm and hand-cuff the sleeping high jackers, and when the plane lands hi-jackers are arrested, passengers wake up, and board a different plane to continue to their destinations. Feasible? |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:14 PM The Israeli's are very tight on doors to cockpits-- the idea is, whatever is happening in the cabin, that door AIN'T opening. I thought the other thing that made sense from El Al's experience was, simply, that baggage and ticket personnel are not security personnel and should not be expected to be-- customer service says the customer is always right, and security says the customer may be a wrong-un. The two roles are both important and can't really be mixed by one person within one role. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Willie-O Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:27 PM Harmless gas that puts everyone to sleep? Handy concept, but I don't think it's been invented. The only available substances are very harmful indeed. Of course, Air Canada at least could play a recording of Margaret Atwood reading from one of her books...that'd usually do it... W-O |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 01 - 12:41 PM Of course that's assuming the terrorists wouldn't have heard of gas masks... If they had the gas it might even make their job easier.
Technical fixes have a very limited role I would think. Worth introducing some of them, but they just reduce danger, not eliminate it.
One suggestion I've seen they are working on is having a facility to override the pilot's controls and take over by remote control. Which opens the nightmare prospect of having the remote control centre taken over, and hundreds of planes guided to disaster.
Simplest and most effective, if possibly unpopular, thing to do would be one I've suggested elsewhere - make everyone hand in all their clothes and belongings prior to a flight, and give passengers some kind of pyjamas or overalls for the duration.
If I was in America I think I'd be buying shares in railway companies.
|
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Sep 01 - 01:03 PM Naked airlines-- stocks rise! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Dave the Gnome Date: 17 Sep 01 - 01:04 PM Until some bugger hijacks a train, Kev! Wasn't there a film about that? And even with the remove all clothes idea there are still places to hide small knives (unless we do an intimate body search on all passangers as well) Guess it could work if we only searched the ones who triggered the metal detector but that means anyone with steel plates etc. would always get searched. What about non-metal weapons as well? I like the tight shut doors and video camera idea. Trouble is, like this last lot, they could just start killing people untill the pilot opens the door. Tough call on the pilot of course - the few or the many? How about no access to the flight crew from the passenger cabin at all? Pre-programmed auto-flight in the event of all crew becoming disabled - using a 'dead mans brake' type device? Possible? I dunno, just asking the question. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: DougR Date: 17 Sep 01 - 01:17 PM I would guess that gas masks might be a bit difficult to conceal, McGrath. If airport security is going to tighten as announced, that problem could be overcome I think. Sounds like a hell-uv-a good idea to me if it is feasible. Good post, Justa Picker! Maybe folks have other good ideas they can post. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Troll Date: 17 Sep 01 - 02:19 PM Gas is out. If you can't regulate the dosage individually you run the grave risk of passengers dieing on you. Thats why they have an anesthethetist on hand during even routine surgery if the patient is "put to sleep." The cockpit door and the surveilance cameras are a good idea. Why not do what El Al does; put armed men on board. Of course, that would mean that the airline would have to give up a couple of seats that could be sold to paying customers but it's better than losing a plane to say nothing of all those little bottles of cheap wine and packs of peanuts. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Sep 01 - 02:32 PM OK. so we have naked passengers. All passengers are given a colonic before boarding the aircraft and all people with significant folds of skin are turned upside down and shaken. All of this is videotaped and shown constantly on cable TV. So that the Airlines can recover their lost revenue. Actually, Justa, I believe that the cabin doors on most commercial jets are already quite secure. Wasn't at least one of the four planes taken over when the flight crew opened the door to protect a flight attendant. I think that Air Marshalls The armed men now used for safety of US international flights would be the best bet domestically as well. random placement of theses men on flights as well as AirPorts/airlines strictly following security proceedures would make our skys much more secure. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: wysiwyg Date: 17 Sep 01 - 02:50 PM No more flight-control tower tours! Oops! ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: GUEST,Sabra Date: 17 Sep 01 - 03:04 PM This is not really relevant to sucicide attacks, but it is in regards to terrorism in general. I have been told that the Israelies have a "no hostage' policy. In other words, if a plane on the ground, bus, train, etc. is hijacked, it is immediately stormed without any attempt at negotiation. I have also been told that there have been no Israelis taken hostage (in Israel) in decades. Is this true. If so, does anyone know the Israeli policy about planes in the air? |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: sophocleese Date: 17 Sep 01 - 05:01 PM I like the idea McGrath. It could lead to a new interest in the "mile high" club. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: mousethief Date: 17 Sep 01 - 05:09 PM I say arm all flight attendants with tasers and train them to use them. Coupled with a door lock for the cabin which won't open from EITHER direction (thus no incentive to kill people to draw out the pilots) when the outside air pressure is less than a certain amount (say 25 inches mercury) -- i.e. it won't open until the plane is about to land. It can be pre-set at takeoff for the altitude of the intended landing city. Can be overridden only by ground crew actually touching the airplane (panel in the outer skin perhaps). Alex |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Ebbie Date: 17 Sep 01 - 06:29 PM and all people with significant folds of skin are turned upside down and shaken. /em> Great line, Jack the Sailor. Thanks for the first giggle I've had recently. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 Sep 01 - 06:36 PM The thing with trains is you can't divert them to crash into buildings miles away, and they aren't full to the gunwales with explosive fuel.
Whatever happens the important thing is to make sure that "commercial considerations" don't come into it. If adequate safety precautions mean it becomes impossible for airlines to make a profit or continue in business, we should just learn to manage without them like all our ancestors did. And they didn't have mobile phones and the internet.
And intriguing as the suggestion might be I didn't suggest naked. Overalls or pyjamas would cover up more than a lot of people normally wear anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Paul from Hull Date: 17 Sep 01 - 07:20 PM Lots of good ideas, though having either a Cockpit door that either couldnt be opened from either side without it being on the ground (where Ground Crew could access the suggested exterior lock, OR a solid Bulkhead making the Cockpit totally separate from the passenger compartment, wouldnt be that assured (though of course FAR safer than now). Terrorists would simply insist that the aircraft be landed at a remote airstrip where they could access the Cockpit, & force &/or replace the Cabin Crew. My suggestion might be that the Flight Plan that is presumably already input into the 'flight computer' as an aid to navigation, could be programmed to PREVENT major course deviations & landing anywhere except at the actual destination (OR point of departure, as a safety measure in case of mechanical, etc, problems with the aircraft). Legitimate deviations from the Flight Plan (made necessary by bad weather at the Destination or whatever) could be made by coded computer signals from Air Traffic Control. Control Towers are more easily defended than Aircraft are. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Murray MacLeod Date: 17 Sep 01 - 08:15 PM Billy Connolly had the answer over twenty years ago, when hijackings were more common than they are now. He reasoned that airlines should totally rethink their security procedures, and instead of scanning passengers for weapons, should issue each and every passenger with a complimentary loaded handgun for the duration of the flight. So when the terrorist stands up and announces that the plane is going to Beirut, he encounters 300 Smith & Wessons pointed at his groin and a thunderous cry of "F**K OFF, WE'RE GOING TO ORLANDO !" Murray
|
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: sophocleese Date: 17 Sep 01 - 08:17 PM Good one Murray. So you just need to get onboard with enough friends to be the majority and you can take the plane wherever you like. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Lepus Rex Date: 17 Sep 01 - 08:24 PM I don't think (or at least I hope) that passengers will allow hijackers to take control of the airplane after this. I think many people thought of hijackings as events with happy endings before the attacks on Tuesday. 100+ people could easily overpower 5 guys armed with box cutters. They could tear them apart, in fact. Looking at the lists of the dead on each plane, and seeing the names of young, possibly able-bodied men and women, I'm surprised that only one small group on one plane seems to have resisted the terrorists. I mean, if someone pulled out a weapon on a plane that I was on, I'd attack him. (I felt that way before this, too) Am I alone here? But, security... I'd have to go with the 'naked' plan (with enema). Someone could always sneak a non-metal firearm on board in one hole or another... Meanwhile, I'll be in my car or on a boat. ;) ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: GUEST,just a nobody Date: 17 Sep 01 - 09:51 PM Hmm... I think we forgot about the handiness of a ryder truck. There is no way to fully secure against terrorism. That is part of it's nature. Sure we can have totally nude flights of passangers all put to sleep by whatever method, but would that end attacks? Nope, just have a different attack method. I hope that people realize that one of the goals of terrorism is to spread terror. To make you give up your freedoms. Where do we draw the line on such things? Personally I would love to see security beefed up. Skymarshals are a great plan, I'm not sure why we ever gave them up. Another plan is to adopt the soviet and Israeli hostage plan, or lack there of. A poster had asked about this and asked why we did not adopt similar security. The simple truth is, Americans would go nuts when innocent people got killed when a plane was stormed. Look at the descension on MudCat. Do you honestly think it would not cause unrest. I do agree though, it would definately make American planes less desireable. One thing that the Israeli's use that we don't is profiling. It is an ugly word anymore, but has been very effective for them. Security has a list of things to watch for, and yes, one of them is race. It does not mean that simply being of a given nationality would make you guilty, only that once you meet certain criteria, you would be watched, stopped, detained or what have you. Very effective for them, but VERY politically incorrect in the US. I think we all need to think about security, even go so far as support those airlines with tight security with your business. Encourage it, remember, they are companies with profit margins that they watch. If the consumer is up in arms about security, it will lighten. If the company is encouraged to have tight security, like businesses willing to book all travel to make sure their employees are safe, then they will continue to strengthen those policies. Just some thoughts. Remember, We are the ones who ultimately make the rules for alot of these businesses. If you think security is lax, remind them. Tell them to please search your bags, and damn the person behind you, no matter how unhappy they are. Maybe that person will be more willing to check others if he recieves the encouragement from you. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: GUEST,petr Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:28 PM sky marshalls, cockpit doors that cant be opened profiling, all those are probably good idea and ought to be implemented. Pilots are now discussing countermeasures such as depressurizing the cabin partially, making evasive manoeouvers that would throw the plane around and unless you were sitting with a seatbelt you would be thrown around, even on a sharp descent you would probably lose your footing. There is a system whereby an autopilot will be engaged if there is no voice from the pilot after a 20min period. My neighbour says his niece just flew from Newcastle to Hamburg and was allowed no carryons other than a plastic envelope containing her passport and money. You might say a lot of this is closing the barn door after the horse is gone, The fact that 4 planes were hijacked and possibly a 5th one was planned but was prevented because of the air emergency indicates that the hijackers knew they would have one chance and one chance only to pull this off, as security would be extremely tight afterwards it would be unlikely to occur again. (but they would probably choose something else - something equally frightening) What surprises me is that the authorities didnt see it coming. There are think tanks whose purpose is to come up with terrorist scenarios, but most terrorist incidents in the past had a clear motive, ie. release of other prisoners etc. these terrorists have no motive that is clear to us other than to instill terror and disrupt our way of life. No one has claimed responsibility, and yet the targets are so symbolic of America and the Western world. It is chilling.
|
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Murray MacLeod Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:42 PM Guest Petr, your post is excellent but you used one phrase which always pisses me off when I see or hear it used by the media. Terrorists should never be spoken of as "claiming responsibility" for their cowardly misdeeds, they should be reported as "admitting guilt". Murray |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: GUEST,petr Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:57 PM thanks Murray, point well taken. Petr |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Wolfgang Date: 18 Sep 01 - 07:12 AM Many of your ideas are fine and might be implemented with success but will they prevent terrorism? Of a certain kind, probably. But think of a determined gang of say 30-50 people who think that every conceivable act of atrocity against an 'enemy' is right. They won't sit there thinking 'Oh shit, with the air marshalls and the locked cockpit doors we probably cannot crush an airliner on the Capitol let's give up'. They'll think 'what else can we do?' They'll think of poisoning large water reservoirs, of abducting many trucks full with fuel and crashing them into restaurants or petrol stations in city centers, of taking over two to four nuclear power plants at the same time near big cities (after studying how to 'drive' the plants into disaster), of blowing up a 300,000 tons tanker in Rotterdam harbour, of ways of getting a nuclear bomb and and and. Within minutes of brainstorming they'll come up with lots of possibilities and then have to work hard to find out which is possible and which isn't. War against them will only give them new recruits (though I admit to a gut feeling of wanting to see Bin Laden dead), safety measures of the above kind will only jog their phantasy, all around safety measures (e.g., but not only, continuous identity card check at every conceivable place) would let us live in a state we'd not be sure we want to defend any longer. I only see two promising methods. First, better counter-espionage. If there are so many CIA (or whatever organisation) agents among them that they cannot trust each other any longer such an organisation slowly dies down. Very high bribes for traitors could be helpful too. Second, try hard to understand why they are doing what they are doing and use political means to take away their grievances. Look into history and you see that nearly each terrorist organisation came from an identifiable (by religion, language, ethnic background) part of the population being denied (at least in their perception) rights the other part had. If then all peaceful, political means of influencing the fate of the underpriviledged part fail for a long time, then the seeds for terrorism have been sown. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: wysiwyg Date: 18 Sep 01 - 07:30 AM Better put a loo in the cockpit, guys, those flights can get mighty long. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Sep 01 - 07:55 AM Padantic point: "claiming responsibility" isn't equivalent to "admitting guilt". It's quite possible to claim responsibility to something you didn't do. It happens all the time. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Troll Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:48 AM Wolfgang, I believe that I read that bin Laden has stated that his goal is the conquest of the world for Islam. I'm not sure where I read it or I would cite the source. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Midchuck Date: 18 Sep 01 - 04:10 PM Murray said: ...airlines should totally rethink their security procedures, and instead of scanning passengers for weapons, should issue each and every passenger with a complimentary loaded handgun for the duration of the flight. So when the terrorist stands up and announces that the plane is going to Beirut, he encounters 300 Smith & Wessons pointed at his groin and a thunderous cry of "F**K OFF, WE'RE GOING TO ORLANDO !" Good one. Too bad most people won't take you seriously, and the few that do will be utterly terrified, and yell for you to be hanged for suggesting it. Of course, it should be limited to those with suitable training in gun, and especially handgun, use. And they ought to be expected to have their own guns already. But that airline should provide ammo for the trip. You gotta have Glaser safety slugs, or something similiar. Firing a hardnose bullet inside a pressurized cabin is a bad idea. What is needed is a real "well organized militia;" to have every responsible citizen trained in essential military skills, and armed. I realize it won't happen. "Responsible citizen" is on the way to becoming an outmoded concept. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: GUEST,Captain America Date: 18 Sep 01 - 04:19 PM Before everyone starts attacking Peter, let me just say one word: Switzerland. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Kim C Date: 18 Sep 01 - 04:40 PM Kendall has mentioned the Sky Marshals several times in other threads. I didn't even know such a thing existed. However, if you have been watching the news the last couple of days, there is talk of putting a Marshal back on every domestic flight, which I think is a good idea. Also flight attendants should be trained in self-defense and crisis aversion, if they are not already. Better cockpit doors will make flying more expensive. How much are you willing to pay? I have disliked flying for several years, not because of fear, but because you pay $300 to get hassled to get on the plane, they they put you in a seat the size of a shoebox and try to appease you with a tiny pack of peanuts. I'm still not afraid to fly, but would rather drive if it's a choice. On the news the other night someone mentioned pilots going armed. I didn't realize they didn't. The cockpit has an axe in it. Big whoop. Also, what if the pilot and co-pilot need to get OUT? I don't think it was the knives or the box cutters that frightened people - it was the concept of "I have a bomb." Most people who have a knife don't know how to use it anyway, at least that's what I've been told, so come at me with a knife, and I'll fight. In a plane that could get blown up anyway, what have you got to lose? If it's just a matter of my handbag, sure, you can have it, if you want to go to that much trouble for $3 and a dozen lipsticks. If it's my life... well, now, that's another story altogether. One report said a passenger on one of the planes had been killed, but didn't say how. Mister said, someone hijacking a plane usually wants to go somewhere. Why would they blow up the plane before they got to where they wanted to go? That seems logical. But the very idea of a bomb is enough to frighten people into submission. Personally, I don't mind having my luggage searched. I don't have anything to hide. They're welcome to look in it, as long as they don't hold my underwear up for the whole world to see... |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Justa Picker Date: 18 Sep 01 - 04:51 PM In order to reduce or eliminate further terrorist activities, the "doomsday planners" and security experts will have to do a much better job of "thinking" like a terrorist, without being in denial about unthinkable scenarios being played out, and therefore dismissing them. When you're dealing with animals who have absolutely no regard for the sanctity of innocent human life and who are willing to die as well, ANYTHING is possible, and therefore appropriate steps, no matter how inconvenient to the public or costly to companies, government, etc. must be implemented to circumvent further catastrophes. You have to give up some freedom to gain some security. Like it or not.
|
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Midchuck Date: 18 Sep 01 - 05:09 PM ...therefore appropriate steps, no matter how inconvenient to the public or costly to companies, government, etc. must be implemented to circumvent further catastrophes. If it's enough of a hassle to fly, a lot of people will choose not to. If enough people choose not to, a lot of the airlines will go under. The "commuter" airlines will probably go under anyway, since the longer waits to board due to security checks will destroy the advantage of a short-hop flight over car travel. Some places will benefit. Vermont ski areas, for instance. The west has better snow and higher mountains, but you can get to northern New England, or the Adirondaks, from the megalopolis, without flying. But who wants to benefit from something like this? It's a lose/lose scenario, and you have to find a middle route. You have to give up some freedom to gain some security. Like it or not. Who can argue with that? But how much freedom do you give up to gain how much security? That's the tricky question. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Kim C Date: 18 Sep 01 - 05:40 PM There's a difference between being inconvenienced, and giving up liberty. I wouldn't consider having my luggage searched a breach of my liberty, but an inconvenience that comes with the contract of a plane ticket. Who was it that said a society that will sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither one? |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: GUEST,Linguist Date: 18 Sep 01 - 05:42 PM Aren't we confusing freedom with luxury in some instances. If stringent security measures at an airport mean that I have to arrive 45 minutes earlier than in the past, I do not really consider that to be giving up freedom. But, I do agree with you in regards to other things such as surveillance, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Murray MacLeod Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:59 PM Kevin, I don't quite see what you are driving at. It is also quite possible to admit guilt for something you didn't do. Used to happen all the time in Thames Valley Police Stations. The point I was trying to make is that when some scumbags are reported by the media as having "claimed responsibility", the very phrase almost seems to legitimize their twisted misdeeds. The media in Britain were forever reporting the Provos as having "claimed responsibility" for their latest outrage. Even if they had been reported as "admitting responsibilty" it would have been preferable, but "admitting guilt" would have been the best. In a similar vein, President Bush really put his foot in it when he said "We will track down the folks responsible" FOLKS ? . "Folks" drive Volvos and Chevy pick-ups, they don't pilot jumbo jets on suicide missions. No, the word he was looking for was "perverts", and that's just for starters. But at least he has had the good sense to attach the adjective "cowardly" to all subsequent references. What I would like to see now would be a concerted propaganda effort by the USA Government and the media to promote the concept that the hijackers were all suffering from some degree of mental deficiency which prevented them knowing what they were doing, and that this weakness was exploited by Bin Ladden. This would further weaken any tendency in the Islamic community claims for these reptiles to be acclaimed as heroes, would further blacken Bin Ladden, and legitimize the US claim that his was the ultimate guilt. Murray
|
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: Wolfgang Date: 19 Sep 01 - 05:38 AM troll (and others), I haven't read that particular bit about Bin Laden but it sounds like him and from what I have read (and heard in interviews) he might well have said it and meant it. He as a person is beyond argumentation or political moves in my eyes. The political moves are for those societies from which these extreme thoughts and men come from. Taking out Bin Laden as soon as possible is good for present and short run safety, making sensible politics is good for long run safety. A bit similar to Hitler and his companions and Germany, Italy, Austria, Japan in my eyes. There was no reasonable choice for the free world except fighting the evil at that time with nearly all means. There was a choice after victory when time for politics came. The USA could have said 'we did our dirty job and now kiss our ass'. It was a very wise move (at the first glance for solely humanitarian reasons and on the long run in their own interest) they didn't. You could hear the long term success of US post WWII politics in Germany last week in many interviews. One voice for all: An old man in Berlin asked why he came to the American embassy with flowers and whether he had suffered personal loss at WTC said: No, he hadn't suffered personal loss but he'll never forget what America did for us after 1945 and especially for Berlin in 1948 and now was the time to pay back. That was one long-term success of a wise politic.
Another theme: Switzerland. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Counter-Terrorism Measures From: GUEST,Captain America Date: 19 Sep 01 - 03:13 PM Wolfgang, The situation in Switerland would certainly be preferable to the vision that many have of a totally disarmed U.S. population. That was the point of my rather smartass comment. |
| Share Thread: |
