I've seen discussed here that the security measures at airports - especially U.S. airports - result in large groups of people crowding together in a small area creating a tempting target for the "bad guys". After today's repeated attack on the London underground, it really got me wondering why we haven't seen a similar style attack at a U.S. Airport.
I'm sure many of us now give a second glance to anyone who gets on a subway, bus or train with a backpack or suitcase. But, you're never going to give a second glance to a person with a suitcase at the airport! It seems it would be so easy to take a suitcase bomb to an airport that I can't imagine why - other than lack of the necessary "motivation" - it hasn't happened.
Think about LAX's Bradley terminal: There are always a ton of people in a small area there. If the original London bombs contained only about 10 pounds of explosives, what kind of damage could be done by loading up a 19 inch rollaboard with explosives? To my knowledge, there is no screening of luggage until you want to go airside. I guess there's a few dogs roaming around and they might catch it, but it seems like a pretty large area for the number of dogs I've seen. And I'm sure there are some smaller airports with busy times that don't have any dogs.
The follow up question would be how do you make it so it isn't such an easy target (or have they already done that and I'm just not seeing it)? Short of screening cars when entering the property and passengers when entering the building, I don't see how you do it. And even in that case, you're going to have crowds of people at the checkpoints regardless of where and when they occur.
This is a large potential security threat, but the lack of an attack suggests that we really don't have many (if any) "sleeper cells" in the USA right now. They've got to get the bombers into the country, then have them acquire the explosives (not difficult, but tougher to do without raising any suspicions).
Dogs will only help so much at airports; if these guys are smart at all, they will have a manual trigger for their bombs, and if the cops start poking around, they will detonate then and there.
A better solution is to do what we can to reduce the huge crowds at such places. One huge step is to improve the efficiency of TSA screening so that there aren't such large queues thusly formed. Next would be to get more people to actually use the check-in kiosks, and perhaps have more staff at airline counters during peak times.
Still, that would but move the risk to somewhere else with crowds, like malls. You may look more odd with a large suitcase or package in a mall, but a smaller bomb could be pretty damaging just as well.
Part of the reason, I believe, is that the suitcase bomb near a checkpoint wouldn't mentally shake us to the core as did four jumbo jet guided missiles.
Part of the bad guys' SOP is to include the mental side of things -- affect things people do every single day and is of value.
A suitcase bomb to a check-in area or security line can be moved. I'm not saying there is NO symbolic value to it, but these guys want to mess with the minds they fail to kill.
Programs: Delta SkyMiles Gold, Ordinary Peasant with HHonors, Starwood, Priority Club, and everyone else
Posts: 606
I think the suitcase bomb is just a matter of time, but it might not be in a suitcase, and the venue might not be at an airport. You're never going to be able to completely avoid crowds. Sports events and concerts are as good a venue as any for making a big exhibition and instilling fear. Blowing off a device at a trade show or convention for a targeted group (media people, cops, security folks, military veterans) would make a big statement that no one is secure.
And getting the device inside just requires some ingenuity. About 20 years ago, some innovative folks brought a large crate with markings indicating it was a copy machine into Harvey's Hotel/Casino at Lake Tahoe. They wore workmen's uniforms and no one paid them much attention. They left the crate in the casino, then left and called in their demand - pay us $$$ or we blow up the place. EOD people eventually "rendered safe" the device, which is copspeak for blowing it up after everyone was evacuated. The building was essentially destroyed. The bad guys were caught not long afterward, and I think they're still in jail (they crossed back into California - about 1/4 mile away - which made it a federal case). This was before it occurred to us to call these guys "terrorists."
I go to the convention of the International Association of Chiefs of Police every year. Part of the meeting is a huge trade show where there is every kind of cop toy known to man. Several vendors bring in full-size trailers (18-wheel type) that house use of force simulators and such. I don't think it would be all that difficult to get a largish explosive device inside, and there goes a good fraction of the world's police leadership.
__________________
For those that have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.
This is a large potential security threat, but the lack of an attack suggests that we really don't have many (if any) "sleeper cells" in the USA right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LessO2
Part of the reason, I believe, is that the suitcase bomb near a checkpoint wouldn't mentally shake us to the core as did four jumbo jet guided missiles.
I thought it was interesting to juxtapose (sp?) these two responses. Have we not seen an attack because, as exerda suggests, the enemy is not amongst us or, is it becase as LessO2 suggests, killing a couple dozen people with a suitcase bomb is kind of a "waste" of a suicide bomber after you've hijacked 4 airplanes, taken down 2 massive buildings, significantly damaged the Pentagon and killed over 3,000 people?
It's probably a little bit of both. But to me, it shows that the enemy really doesn't understand Ameircan's.
While the 9/11 attacks were horrific, they were still "in someone else's backyard" to most of America. While it certainly hit a little closer to home than an embassy bombin in Kenya, much of America realizes a 9/11 style attack is unlikely to happen "here" - whereever "here" may be. Unless you live/work in downtown LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, etc., a 9/11 style attack isn't really a huge threat to you.
On the other hand, think about the D.C. area sniper shootings. A low-tech attack like that has the potential to paralyze much of America. If those weren't just happening in D.C, but were happening in 20 cities across America simultaneously (if the 20 hijackers did that instead), American's would be scared out of their wits. Folks wouldn't go to the store, kids wouldn't be playing outside, etc. etc. etc.
Same thing with suitcase bomb attacks at airports. It only takes one bad guy - not 20 like 9/11 - at each airport. Say they bomb LAX, MIA and BUF today. Then next week a bomb goes off at ORD. Then nothing for 2 weeks, until they hit MCI, SLC and ATL all on the same day..... That's only 7 bombs, set off by 7 guys. But how does it affect the travelling public? How are you going to feel about standing in a security line with 150 other people for 20 minutes twice a week every week? I think that would have a pretty significant economic impact, but maybe I'm all wet.
Last edited by The Real McCoy; Jul 21, 05 at 10:08 am..
First, this issue of crowding at airports (specifically LAX) has been brought up a number of times. You're always going to have crowds somewhere. So you can make LAX relatively safer by having an efficient security screening process, but then people will be bunched up at a mall or wherever.
Why hasn't it happened? Probably because no one wants to pull it off at the moment or isn't quite ready to. There's almost no way of stopping such an attack. You can take some measures to deter or minimize the damage such an attack would cause, but you can't stop it all the time, or probably even most of the time.
I think the suitcase bomb is just a matter of time, but it might not be in a suitcase, and the venue might not be at an airport. You're never going to be able to completely avoid crowds. Sports events and concerts are as good a venue as any for making a big exhibition and instilling fear. Blowing off a device at a trade show or convention for a targeted group (media people, cops, security folks, military veterans) would make a big statement that no one is secure.
It's already happened. It's just that when it's not people of European origin getting murdered, it gets less coverage (in the US especially and in Europe too).
"'Suitcase' bombs" on trains, at train stations, theaters, taxi stands, bus stands/depots, and more. Seen it already (years ago even).
What "cold warriors" did has repercussions. Generally, people and "leaders" just didn't care to hear about it during the peak of the Cold War or even in the decade (and two) that followed (even to this day). Their interests were "more immediate" ... and the lives of "others" is often considered "cheaper".
Everybody entering Ataturk International Airport (IST) goes through security similar in nature to a TSA checkpoint. And yes, terrorist attacks on public places and public transportation are hardly novel. Sadly, since our recent wonderful month of travel in and around Turkey there have been at least two bombings there including this deadly one:
Joseph Conrad's 1907 novel, The Secret Agent, centers around a mentally challenged ("simple") young man who gets involved in the anarchist movement in London and accidentally blows himself up. I'm surprised it isn't discussed more:
Same thing with suitcase bomb attacks at airports. It only takes one bad guy - not 20 like 9/11 - at each airport. Say they bomb LAX, MIA and BUF today. Then next week a bomb goes off at ORD. Then nothing for 2 weeks, until they hit MCI, SLC and ATL all on the same day..... That's only 7 bombs, set off by 7 guys. But how does it affect the travelling public? How are you going to feel about standing in a security line with 150 other people for 20 minutes twice a week every week? I think that would have a pretty significant economic impact, but maybe I'm all wet.
The DC area was completely paranoid during the sniper event a couple of years ago. I remember watching people acting really nervous while queing up foutside for buses. Heck, at our commuter bus stop a good 50 miles from DC, one of the county cop positioned himself in his car right at our bus stop for nearly a month while these guys were on the loose. You would see people running from their cars into Home Depot, because one of the victims was shot in a Home Depot parking lot.
There's no limit to people's ability to become panicked. All it takes is for a small group of bad guys to push the right buttons.
__________________ Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. --
Mark Twain
What "cold warriors" did has repercussions. Generally, people and "leaders" just didn't care to hear about it during the peak of the Cold War or even in the decade (and two) that followed (even to this day). Their interests were "more immediate" ... and the lives of "others" is often considered "cheaper".
Since the Muslims were on the losing side in WWI and WWII, they have suffered the consequences. Opting with the German side in the Great Wars has repercussions.
Since the Muslims were on the losing side in WWI and WWII, they have suffered the consequences. Opting with the German side in the Great Wars has repercussions.
I don't know that you can characterize "the Muslims" as being on the losing sides of both World Wars, nor that you can say that being so is responsible for their current problems. You need to take a few history lessons.
Looking just WW II:
The leaders of what would today be Iraq did try to join the Axis, though there was a lot of internal resistance. Some of the other countries tried with limited success to work with the Japanese. They did so because they wanted freedom from the imperial powers that the Axis was fighting, namely the British, Dutch, and French. India did the same thing--they wanted independence from Britian.
Most of the Southeast Asian states were not allied with the Germans or the Axis. They were invaded and taken over by Japan, who set up puppet governments who natually decided to render (relatively ineffective) aide to the Axis cause. This wasn't "the Muslims" doing so.
For what it's worth, Iran fought with the Allies, and all of the British and French colonies (this was much of the Middle East and north Africa) were officially on the Allies' side, even if members of their societies gave aide to the Axis to try to win help in obtaining independence.
If you want to concentrate on the Middle East, I doubt you could make a serious case that war reparations & other consequences of being on the losing side are responsible for the social and economic conditions in the Middle East today that have allowed terrorism to flourish.
On the other hand, think about the D.C. area sniper shootings. A low-tech attack like that has the potential to paralyze much of America. If those weren't just happening in D.C, but were happening in 20 cities across America simultaneously (if the 20 hijackers did that instead), American's would be scared out of their wits. Folks wouldn't go to the store, kids wouldn't be playing outside, etc. etc. etc.
My friend and I were discussing this when the DC sniper case was going on and we came to the same conclusion you did. That would have a paralyzing effect and it seems like it wouldn't be that difficult to pull off if they got the people in here to do it. Guns wouldn't be that hard for them to get.
In addition to airport, imagine if suicide bombers blew themselves up near a baseball game, or in a big festival (e.g. here in Chicago, the Taste of Chicago or Blues Fest). I actually fear that they might do this eventually, because then you'll see backpack checking in every mall or store. I don't want to see more of our freedoms and conveniences get taken away.
I do have some faith in what my friend said. He thinks that it hasn't happened here yet because life isn't that bad here in the US compared to other parts of the world. It isn't a breeding ground for suicide bombers. This goes along with what others have said in earlier posts: that we probably don't have sleeper cells here yet. Well, I believe that we at least don't have cells of terrorists lined up that are ready to blow themselves up. I think we probably have cells that are financing or ready to facilitate bombers.
In addition to airport, imagine if suicide bombers blew themselves up near a baseball game, or in a big festival (e.g. here in Chicago, the Taste of Chicago or Blues Fest). I actually fear that they might do this eventually, because then you'll see backpack checking in every mall or store. I don't want to see more of our freedoms and conveniences get taken away.
Seen something of the sort above before.... way too often. (Just primarily abroad as of late.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhwbullhead
]I do have some faith in what my friend said. He thinks that it hasn't happened here yet because life isn't that bad here in the US compared to other parts of the world. It isn't a breeding ground for suicide bombers. This goes along with what others have said in earlier posts: that we probably don't have sleeper cells here yet. Well, I believe that we at least don't have cells of terrorists lined up that are ready to blow themselves up. I think we probably have cells that are financing or ready to facilitate bombers.
There just aren't that many of "themmmmm 'fah-in' collah'd folks" who are consciously active supporters of terrorism in the US (or who can readily come to the US) AND who are interested in killing others in America. 100-300 out of a population of 3 million to 50+ million of "themmmmm 'fah-in' collah'd folks" (many of whom are not foreign any more than the overwhelming majority of us in the US).
Location: various cities in the USofA: NYC, BWI, IAH, CHI, ?
Programs: CO Gold, Hilton Gold somehow, AGR moocher via CO
Posts: 3,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMorris
Since the Muslims were on the losing side in WWI and WWII, they have suffered the consequences. Opting with the German side in the Great Wars has repercussions.
Yeah, those Germans have suffered so much since WWII.
(Okay, yes, huge areas of land were ethnically cleansed of Germans after WWII, resulting in the force expulsion of millions of people, but in general the sarcasm is valid.)
