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.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

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

Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around the
throat while the other goes for the weapon.

Certain to succeed? No. But a fair chance, and this doesn't even require
the terrorists to be armed with almanacs, fishing line, or anything else
"fancy".

[...]

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.

They'd be using the same techniques one terrorist might try against the
marshal, BTW. But let's not forget the possibility of the aircrew
colluding, or one pilot just waiting for the other pilot to hit the head.

Which, of course, begs the question of how pilots are being vetted by the
TSA. What type of clearance is required to be an ATP today? What about
working for a foreign airline?

I'm beginning to think that the real solution is to ban airliners, and force
everyone to take small aircraft. Some might be used as weapons, but they'd
be less effective.

No, I'm not serious. But since I prefer to fly small than large, why not do
what the US administration does: hide my own self-interest in the guise of
"national security".

- Andrew

Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around the
throat while the other goes for the weapon.

Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
penalty for guessing wrong is death.

Of course, if my plan were adopted, allow all Concealed Weapons Permit holders
to carry at will on any flight, there might be anywhere from zero to dozens.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message ...
] Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
penalty for guessing wrong is death.

He's the one sitting in first class and not drinking.


Of course, if my plan were adopted, allow all Concealed Weapons Permit holders
to carry at will on any flight, there might be anywhere from zero to dozens.

Or they could just issue guns to all the passengers before the flight...pillow? blanket?
pistol?

In article , "Ron
Natalie" wrote:

] Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do
your
two
terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them?
The
penalty for guessing wrong is death.

He's the one sitting in first class and not drinking.

oh crap, now people will think I'm an air marshall.

--
Bob Noel

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:37:34 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:

terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
penalty for guessing wrong is death.

He's the one sitting in first class and not drinking.

this would make him beeing the guy on upper deck on a 747 and having about
300 or so passengers and a handful of terrorists on the lower deck. for
sure, the cockpit door is accessed through the upper deck ....

If it is me beeing a terrorist in this situation and I can't get control of
the plane itself (and ramming it into a building, ...) then I will be happy
by killing the 300 or so passengers.

#m

--
harsh regulations in North Korea (read below link after reading the story):
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/04/open-mikulan.php
oooops ... sorry ... it happened in the USA, ya know: the land of the free.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:37:34 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:

"Wdtabor" wrote in message ...
Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them?

He's the one sitting in first class and not drinking.

Fortunately, it's not that simple. They don't all sit in first
class...

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Jack Davis" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:37:34 -0500, "Ron Natalie"
wrote:

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your
two
terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them?

He's the one sitting in first class and not drinking.

Fortunately, it's not that simple. They don't all sit in first
class...

and they don't all not drink

Wdtabor wrote:


Picture two terrorists, one walking to the restroom and one walking back
from. They meet where the marshal is seated. One grabs the guy around
the throat while the other goes for the weapon.

Uh, there are between 90 and 400 passengers on that plane. How do your two
terrorists know which one to grab, or that there aren't two of them? The
penalty for guessing wrong is death.

Sigh In you pop up this thread a few messages, you'll see that I wrote:

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.

So you're depending upon the terrorists not learning a secret.
That's fine...until/unless they do learn the secret. In that
case, security is actually *reduced* as they now have access to
a weapon on board (assuming, again, that it's not easier to simply
smuggle something on board than it is to discern this secret).

Of course, if my plan were adopted, allow all Concealed Weapons Permit
holders to carry at will on any flight, there might be anywhere from zero
to dozens.

Your plan has a couple of advantages: the secret changes, making
(1) it tougher to discern for a given case (ie. flight) and (2)
making the cost of a "lost" secret lower, as it would impact only
a single flight.

However, it also has a major weakness: the assumption that all the
carriers are "safe". As you widen the population of people permitted
to carry weapons on board, you make it more likely that this population
includes your attackers (either as actual members or through impersonation).

Finally, your personal values are reflected in your comment "the penalty
for guessing wrong is death". That matters to you. That might even matter
to at least some of the actual attackers (I seem to recall reading that some
of the 2001/9/11 attackers didn't know it was a suicide mission). But
it doesn't need to matter to the attack planners.

I've no doubt that those planners - sitting safely on the side - would be
perfectly willing to send attackers into battle with falsified information.
The likelyhood of success drops, of course. But then they've plenty of
victims waiting for martyrdom.

- Andrew

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

Sigh In you pop up this thread a few messages, you'll see that I wrote:

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.


So what? You never did explain how the terrorists identify the marshals.



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.


But how does the terrorist get access to the marshal's identity on a flight?
It's not enough to just state that's all he has to do, you have to explain
how he does it.



That is,
there are now two different ways to acquire a weapon on board, whereas
before there was just one.


How does the terrorist get the gun from the marshal?



So you're depending upon the terrorists not learning a secret.


How would they learn it?



That's fine...until/unless they do learn the secret.


How would they learn it?



In that
case, security is actually *reduced* as they now have access to
a weapon on board (assuming, again, that it's not easier to simply
smuggle something on board than it is to discern this secret).


But if they don't know who the marshal is security is *increased*.