dont you think its stuid they wont let anything on the planes i understand that its for our saftey but really only meds, baby formula, and milk they anounce it on TV so the next terriost will be like umm i know what to bring now. And even if they really wanted to do damage they dont even have to get passed the security.
2006-08-16 09:19:40 · 9 answers · asked by Loving Life 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
To help they can only allow meds. they can supply the baby formula and milk like they do water and soda. also have the people that check your non-carry on luggage check your carry on luggage nothing to deep but just a open and take a look. Ya I understand how they want people to be safe im not retarted, but if they really thought about it there are so many different things they can do. since they are advertising what you can bring on the plane on TV they can say lets make a bomb out of milk or meds instead.
2006-08-16 09:48:50 · update #1
?????
2006-08-16 09:23:27 · answer #1 · answered by Penguin Gal 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stupid it is NOT! The day this all happened and the suspects were arrested, the FBI and DHS sent an internal memo to state and local law-enforcement agencies warning that peroxide--based explosives could be used in an attack. But the memo could offer only so much guidance. No one could tell airport searchers exactly what to look for. Even if they knew, they wouldn't have the tools to find it.
As passengers handed over their deoderants, hair gel and bottled waters it brings back memories of a time in 1987 two North Korean agents posing as father and daughter put a radio packed with plastic explosives and a whisky bottle full of liquid explosives in a bag in the overhead bin of a South Korean airliner. Then they got off on a layover. The subsequent explosion sent the plan spinning into the jungle near the Thailand Burma border, killing all 115 people onboard.
Since 1969 explosives have killed about 2,000 people on planes.
Explosive devices will remain the primary threat to aviation indefinitely.
Why you ask does our systems remain so vulnerable? The explosives detection machines in airport today are not able to sniff out liquid explosives in a sealed container.
The fix is elusive because explosives can literally appear in any form, from computer paper to jello, sold to gas, and they can be detonated by an endless mosaic of everyday devices.
Unless you are ready to conduct intimate body searches or scans of every single passenger on every single flight, you cannot guarantee security from smuggled explosives, its as simple as that.
The U.S. should be doing more to defend against bombs in general.
Given the hard reality of limited resources, what is the rational thing to do next?
The idea of investing money in body scanning machines or prohibiting carry on luggage might provide a degree of security against liquid explosives, but such steps would do nothing about the fact that most of the cargo shipped on passenger planes goes entirely uninspected for bombs or anything else.
While the U.S. tries to improve the fragmented intelligence capabilities as we fly, we as Americans need to remember to keep our ears and eyes open at all times and if we see something that is not right thorugh our profiling of a potential suspect we need to speak up, because terrorists do make mistakes and its people like you and I that can help catch them.
2006-08-16 09:55:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's ridicculess until planes start falling out of the sky onto schools and hospitals. What do you need on a plane trip other than your medicine, things to keep your baby content and whatever you can grab at the news stand at your gate?
Maybe if we treat this like a threat to our safety we'll be safe.
2006-08-16 09:35:38 · answer #3 · answered by W0LF 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
uh, if they didn't do all this and then someone blew up a plane, there would be a million people screaming "why did you let people bring liquid on the plane when you knew that the terrorists were planning to blow up the plane using liquid explosives?"
and then a whole bunch of people would get fired.
so, that's probably the answer: the people in charge want to keep their jobs.
2006-08-16 09:25:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no i don't think it stupid .anything that they have to do to save live .it's OK with me i here a lot of peoples winning about this but as soon as one of those plane come down you will stop the winning over face and hand lotion and stuff you really don't need on a plane.please
2006-08-16 09:35:15 · answer #5 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do you suggest they do differently? My family has to fly in November, I would love for all of us to arrive and return safely.
2006-08-16 09:24:45 · answer #6 · answered by bereal1 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
learn how to spell.
2006-08-16 09:25:19 · answer #7 · answered by dj 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you have some plans!!
2006-08-16 09:26:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
So what are you trying to tell us?
2006-08-16 09:24:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋