Why 1965, a point of time nearly fifty years ago in our past? Is there any reason why you picked this particular date?
I picked it for illustrative purposes, in order to get people's opinions. The first security measures were implemented around 1970, so 1965 is the most recent time that there was no airline security.
1965 security is too little. 2012 security is too much pomp and circumstance, not enough substance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey likes it
I was OK with Sep 10, 2011 security.
Me, too, with the added measures of hardened cockpit doors and the doctrinal change to no longer cooperate with hijackers. I would combine this with a robust -- and absolutely Constitutional -- domestic and international counterterrorism program.
1965: no security measures whatsoever. No metal detectors, no screening of baggage, open cockpit.
2012: metal detectors, whole body imaging, patdowns, air marshals, etc.
For the purposes of this question, it's all or nothing. You can't choose some security measures and not others.
Looking forward to seeing people's opinions.
An absurd choice. Typically these threads end up being (mis-) quoted later as "that tin foil hat crowd over at TS&S doesn't want any airport security at all."
My vote is with Mikey (on the basis that he meant to say 9/10/01), gfunk, Flies and halls.
__________________ When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty. - George Bernard Shaw
Last edited by RadioGirl; Nov 27, 12 at 6:07 pm..
Reason: date
As others have said, hardened cockpit doors and no surrender to demands are reasonable additions.
At some point I have to evaluate the importance of perceived safety to the loss of constitutional protections. I'll take the affirmed importance of the constitution.
Liberty involves risk. Mitigation of risk requires intelligence, courage and personal responsibility.
The reduction in liberty due to the lack of these qualities in our citizens I consider to be one of the greatest tragedies of our modern age.
__________________
Livingston's observation of complex systems: The purpose of a system is what it does.
As RadioGirl observed, the question presents a false dichotomy.
If such an ad absurdum argument could stand, I'd vote with 1965 - unquestionably.
Fortunately, however, such simplistic black-and-white thinking doesn't hold water. As is the case with any dilemma, it's helpful to change one or more variable(s), then reexamine the problem.
I vote for "09/10/2001 security plus reinforced cockpit doors plus refusal to cooperate".
~~ Irish
__________________
Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat.
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, FB Plat, AS Gold, Marriott Gold, Fairmont Plat, BA wannabe
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioGirl
An absurd choice. Typically these threads end up being (mis-) quoted later as "that tin foil hat crowd over at TS&S doesn't want any airport security at all."
