Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"John Roncallo" wrote in message
. com...

1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle
guns on board.


Wouldn't the terrorists have to know which flights carried air marshals?

Yes. They'd also need to identify the marshal amongst the passengers, as
you noted. However, relying upon these "secrets" is relying upon something
called "security through obscurity". It doesn't work in the long term.

If nothing else, it's yet another "weak point" against which an "attack" can
be attempted. It means that the terrorist doesn't need to get a weapon on
board, but just get access to the marshal's identity on a flight. That is,
there are now two different ways to acquire a weapon on board, whereas
before there was just one.

Of course, for this to matter we have to assume that it is impossible (or at
least very difficult) to smuggle a weapon on board. I find myself
unwilling to make that assumption. If some kid could do it - and multiple
times at that - then why not a collection of savvy terrorists?

The risk of having a known weapon on board has to be balanced against the
possibility of having an unknown weapon on board.

- Andrew

P.S. How do the marshals get through security? Even aircrew is scanned.
How obvious would the lone unscanned person be?