Folks,

The topic is "Flying without any security," not ordnance, the collective IQ of Kiwi Nation or the U.S. Libertarian Party. Please stick to the discussion at hand. Thank you.

----------
essxjay
TS/S moderator

Thanks for the reminder essxjay. I got carried away.

The point I was trying to make was simply that people with Arabic names plagiarizing the 1971 Anarchists Cookbook or the 1933 Chemical Formulary are not a credible counter to the "Flying without Security" proposal as defined earlier in this thread.

Don't forget The Poor Man's James Bond. An invaluable resource. @:-)

(BTW: most of the info in TPMJB is accurate. ;) )

Most with a basic understanding of geography would not. Mexico is the wealthiest country in Latin America. I find that those who call it a "third world country" are uneducated, racist, or both.

2nd world is a fair assessment. When one of a countries largest industries is emigrants sending money back to their families, I don't see how anyone could classify it as a 1st world country.

Hillary? Haha... Ha... Seriously? You were joking right? It's hard to convey sarcasm on the internet...

Ron Paul is the only one I can think of...

I think they have options in New Zealand we don't have because of the realities of our geography. Looking back at the 1970s, when you never knew if your flight would be re-routed to Havana, I don't think it would work in North America to have large commercial jets flying around without any security screening process. Also, one extortion scheme involved the bad guys threatening to fly the craft into a nuclear reactor (perhaps at Oak Ridge, the details are hazy now) if they didn't get their money. I have no idea if they have nuclear reactors at all anywhere in New Zealand, but I do know that people have argued that they aren't well secured against large commercial aircraft, only against smaller aircraft.

You can argue that our security is imperfect and that a dedicated terrorist/suicide bomber will be able to sneak through -- but most criminals, extortionists, and escapees from mental institutions have been quite well deterred by airport security. You hardly ever get on a plane and wind up in Havana these days. You don't do nothing because you can't do everything.

I believe there can be a balance between security and reasonable risk. I don't believe liquids are a credible risk. I don't believe that checking IDs is anything but revenue protection. But certainly we need to have some screening for weapons.

While security was a factor, the primary reason planes stopped going to Havana was that Castro no longer offered asylum to the hijackers. They were returned to the U.S.

Indeed. The OP speculated about flight without elaborate security measures. Some here read that as no security measures.

I've flown in and out of GNS several times in the last year. Just give the guy your boarding pass and walk out onto the tarmac to the plane.

I've even carried a Swiss Army knife in my pocket on those flights.

Of course, elsewhere in Indonesia they are starting to actually recognize knives on the xrays.

Yep, no more knives on domestic Indonesian airlines.

Paul

Oh, yes...

Who can say (without peeking) what airport GNS is?

Paul

I believe that another famous Bruce, aka "The Boss" discussed this during his 60 Minutes interview last night and also before one of the songs he performed on the Today Show last week. ^

There is also no security in SBH for the short flight to SXM.

Yeah, I saw that. We Bruces have to stick together, you know! :)

Bruce