OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

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.


Please explain how having an armed marshal aboard is a "weak point". How do
the terrorists get the weapon away from the marshal?



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


I've always thought it humorous that the flight crew was scanned. Why would
the flight crew need a weapon at all? They're already locked in the
cockpit. All the pilot or copilot would have to do is incapacitate the
other.