> There are probably 10x as many dumb potential attackers as smart ones, and it makes sense to be eliminate the easy avenues for the dumb ones while you concentrate other resources on the smart ones. It's also important not to ignore both the intelligence value of security checks as well as their potential forensic value in the event of a successful attack.
This is the point that is always missed when talking about "security theater".
Smart and practiced people can make anything look easy. An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute. Is it impossible? No, but almost nothing is impossible.
Making an attack difficult on a plane also eliminates the majority of severally mentally unstable from carrying it out. You can kill 300+ people in one instant, it is impossible to stop the truly motivated and capable (ultra tail risk) attacker, but it is crucial to stop the rest of the tail from casually taking down an airliner.
An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute. Is it impossible? No, but almost nothing is impossible.
I don't think you are making the point you intend to make - the very fact that pulling off a successful attack is inherently difficult is what stops those people, not any security agency.
Same thing with attacks anywhere else. For example: The Times Square bomber couldn't even build a working bomb despite two college degrees and the 2007 London & Glasgow Airport bombers couldn't figure it out either, for their swan song they put propane tanks in their jeep cherokee, lit themselves on fire and drove into a barricade in front of the airport, despite one of them having a doctor's education.
In all of its existence, the TSA has never detained someone who was later convicted on terrorism charges, despite the vast lowering of the standard of evidence for such charges since 9/11. The fact that we've seen so few attacks on "softer" targets (roughly 3 civilians have been killed in islamic-extremist attacks on US soil since 9/11) means that the size of the actual threat is practically zero - including the fools.
There was a shooting at LA just weeks ago. Lots of less than spectacular events have occurred on soft targets over the past 10 years. Each of those may have easily converted in to a more spectacular attack.
The marathon bombers were targeting the marathon for the message. They may have choosen to use an airliner to make that message had it not been for TSA. We don't know. There just isn't quality enough data on either side to remove airport security.
You mean Paul Anthony Ciancia who was pissed off about all the excessive security and deliberately targeted TSA agents hoping to commit suicide-by-cop?
Lots of less than spectacular events have occurred on soft targets over the past 10 years. Each of those may have easily converted in to a more spectacular attack.
Citing all attacks anywhere as justification for the TSA is a recipe for the unlimited ratcheting up of security. It is an enormous leap in logic to assume somebody with a semi-auto rifle or a crock-pot bomb is capable of getting them past pre-911 airport security and also doing something effective with it once they have. An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute.
But there's little if any evidence that there's any real threat of mentally unstable people, or not particularly smart terrorists, wanting to carry out attacks either.
If these people existed, they'd be attacking trains/metros today. The Madrid and London bombings show how devastating these can be - and on a train, you could do it with a pretty high chance of getting away uninjured - just leave your bag on the train and get off before it's due to explode.
Yet despite the ridiculous ease, low risk and effectiveness of such an attack, they still very, very rarely happen.
Without security, you can bet that this list of American Hijackings would continue to present day. Not everyone needs to blow up a plane to cause mass havoc.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. From that list, there were 2 involving the US in the 90s and 4 in the 80s. Is the huge increase in disruption, inconvenience and intrusion for every traveller really necessary to cut that level of threat down?
And how many of the attempted hijackings since 2001 had anywhere near the impact of Madrid or London's train/bus bombs? If there's really terrorists trying to cause havoc, why aren't they taking this easy option?
You will notice that they were rolled out in the 70s as security screening started at airports. It was proven effective and unless you can make an argument why people wouldn't pose security threats now with no security checkpoints you won't convince any actual decision maker anywhere.
50s - none involving America. 60s - 5. 70s - 14 (3 of which, as far as I can tell with any fatalities).
However, I'm not really arguing against zero security at airports. What I'm arguing against is the ludicrous increase in security procedures since 9/11.
>It is currently difficult to execute. It won't be if we had no security
It's not difficult to execute bombings on trains, and they are hugely impactful when it happens. Yet they rarely happen. You seem to be ignoring this.
The 70s are the decade where there were many hijackings. That's also when air travel became more commonplace and huge jets were more widely in service.
In the 60s if you weren't a military person, foreigner arriving from or headed to home, or white guy with a suit, you'd be picked up on pretty quickly, security checkpoints or no. Also, we weren't exporting trillions of dollars to and fomenting unrest in the Middle East in those days.
In the 90s, I used to fly to Baltimore on Southwest to get drunk for $30 with friends for the weekend. If I couldn't make it, I'd give the ticket to someone else or sell it. Totally different universe and threat model than ye olden times.
This is the point that is always missed when talking about "security theater".
Smart and practiced people can make anything look easy. An attack on an airplane is simply too challenging for the vast majority of people to execute. Is it impossible? No, but almost nothing is impossible.
Making an attack difficult on a plane also eliminates the majority of severally mentally unstable from carrying it out. You can kill 300+ people in one instant, it is impossible to stop the truly motivated and capable (ultra tail risk) attacker, but it is crucial to stop the rest of the tail from casually taking down an airliner.