Originally Posted by damorgan
Spiff, you seem to be going down the route of acceptable losses here. At what point does the number of preventable deaths/injuries become acceptable against the perceived downsides of carrying out controls? That's next door to sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping it doesn't go bang.
A lorry bomb on a ferry is avoidable through the deployment of TSA checks. It's a possible threat, it's stoppable, why not stop it?
And a WMD attack in midtown Manhattan would be way way more destructive than a lorry bomb. We could probably prevent it if we carried out random searches of homes day and night, screened people on the subway and buses, screen all vehicles before bridges and tunnels, deploy the military in Manhattan, etc. It's a possible threat, it's stoppable, why not stop it?