Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

In other Trump admin news, NHS security chief Kelly says that he's considering expanding the laptop ban to ALL flights going TO AND FROM the US. I fail to see how that would keep us safe because all it does is put the potential bombs in the cargo hold, where they would be just as effective. Not to mention the concerns of having all those lithium batteries in the hold and the impact that it would have on the airlines.

A laptop is too small to blow up a whole airplane, but if you hold the bomb next to the side, you can rip the skin open which can cause all kind of troubles. On the other hand, a laptop in the middle of a pile of luggage won't do much good.

There actually was such an attempt on a Somalian plane last year but the plane survived because the terrorist blew up the bomb too soon.

[Reelya]

Macron looks like he's finding the situation extremely gratifying. Perhaps too gratifying...

Of course, he got one over on Trump, which would gratify anyone, and he probably gave himself an extra popularity boost in his home country, too.

[Antioch]

In other Trump admin news, NHS security chief Kelly says that he's considering expanding the laptop ban to ALL flights going TO AND FROM the US. I fail to see how that would keep us safe because all it does is put the potential bombs in the cargo hold, where they would be just as effective. Not to mention the concerns of having all those lithium batteries in the hold and the impact that it would have on the airlines.

A laptop is too small to blow up a whole airplane, but if you hold the bomb next to the side, you can rip the skin open which can cause all kind of troubles. On the other hand, a laptop in the middle of a pile of luggage won't do much good.

There actually was such an attempt on a Somalian plane last year but the plane survived because the terrorist blew up the bomb too soon.

The amount of explosives you can pack into a laptop is PLENTY to crash an airplane.

In WW2 the germans estimated it took an average of 4 30mm shells to down a b-17 bomber. Those 30mm shells had only 85 grams of high explosive filler each.

[smjjames]

Besides, if you let the bombs get onboard (CARGO HOLD IS INCLUDED IN 'ONBOARD' BTW), then you've failed anyway, right? So, unless you want to do something horribly cost ineffiicient (and just plain inefficient) like putting everybodys cargo into a separate cargo plane and flying that behind the passenger plane, it'd be a whole lot better to prevent it from getting onto the plane (cargohold AND passenger area) in the first place.

It just smells like feel-good bunker/fortress mentality rather than any logical or practical method.

[Cruxador]

Honestly, there comes a point in time where you have to say "screw it, it's worth taking this risk for convenience and comfort". And honestly, looking at the amount of serious damage to human life that has been done by laptops on planes compared to the amount of convenience that they provide, I'm pretty sure this is a risk worth taking.

[Sheb]

In other Trump admin news, NHS security chief Kelly says that he's considering expanding the laptop ban to ALL flights going TO AND FROM the US. I fail to see how that would keep us safe because all it does is put the potential bombs in the cargo hold, where they would be just as effective. Not to mention the concerns of having all those lithium batteries in the hold and the impact that it would have on the airlines.

A laptop is too small to blow up a whole airplane, but if you hold the bomb next to the side, you can rip the skin open which can cause all kind of troubles. On the other hand, a laptop in the middle of a pile of luggage won't do much good.

There actually was such an attempt on a Somalian plane last year but the plane survived because the terrorist blew up the bomb too soon.

The amount of explosives you can pack into a laptop is PLENTY to crash an airplane.

In WW2 the germans estimated it took an average of 4 30mm shells to down a b-17 bomber. Those 30mm shells had only 85 grams of high explosive filler each.

What about the amount of explosive you can put into a laptop while not being obvious in a X-Ray machine? The 30 mm shells also did explode on the exterior of the airplane, not deep in a pile of luggage.

[smjjames]

In other Trump admin news, NHS security chief Kelly says that he's considering expanding the laptop ban to ALL flights going TO AND FROM the US. I fail to see how that would keep us safe because all it does is put the potential bombs in the cargo hold, where they would be just as effective. Not to mention the concerns of having all those lithium batteries in the hold and the impact that it would have on the airlines.

A laptop is too small to blow up a whole airplane, but if you hold the bomb next to the side, you can rip the skin open which can cause all kind of troubles. On the other hand, a laptop in the middle of a pile of luggage won't do much good.

There actually was such an attempt on a Somalian plane last year but the plane survived because the terrorist blew up the bomb too soon.

The amount of explosives you can pack into a laptop is PLENTY to crash an airplane.

In WW2 the germans estimated it took an average of 4 30mm shells to down a b-17 bomber. Those 30mm shells had only 85 grams of high explosive filler each.

What about the amount of explosive you can put into a laptop while not being obvious in a X-Ray machine? The 30 mm shells also did explode on the exterior of the airplane, not deep in a pile of luggage.

I wonder if the Feds have done any actual physical testing which involves blowing up a derelict/mothballed/surplus passenger plane (though you'd have to account for any damage due to neglect) with a bomb in the cargo hold that is like the laptop bomb that they are fearing. It'd make more sense if they cited classified tests, though I'd probably half expect them to lie about conducting classified tests.

[Starver]

Not sure about "the Feds", but there have been plenty of tests (with suitable pressure differentials and other relevent factors), which includes tests of passive countermeasures, over many years, sometimes with meticulous attention to detail to pin down very exacting circumstances...

ETA: Is " unacceptable" an acceptable response?

[sluissa]

Plane designers are now even required to consider a "least risk bomb location" Where a suspicious device can be placed on the plane that would least likely affect the plane's ability to fly. Apparently some planes have special compartments with exterior blow out panels while others just suggest placing the device next to a particular exit and piling luggage on top.

The strange thing about planes is that damage to some locations can make the whole thing fall apart in mid air. But other locations you can remove large chunks and it will still fly.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The locations where it matters though are typically VERY VERY well tested and designed to survive well above any sort of expected treatment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0

[Lord Shonus]

In other Trump admin news, NHS security chief Kelly says that he's considering expanding the laptop ban to ALL flights going TO AND FROM the US. I fail to see how that would keep us safe because all it does is put the potential bombs in the cargo hold, where they would be just as effective. Not to mention the concerns of having all those lithium batteries in the hold and the impact that it would have on the airlines.

A laptop is too small to blow up a whole airplane, but if you hold the bomb next to the side, you can rip the skin open which can cause all kind of troubles. On the other hand, a laptop in the middle of a pile of luggage won't do much good.

There actually was such an attempt on a Somalian plane last year but the plane survived because the terrorist blew up the bomb too soon.

The amount of explosives you can pack into a laptop is PLENTY to crash an airplane.

In WW2 the germans estimated it took an average of 4 30mm shells to down a b-17 bomber. Those 30mm shells had only 85 grams of high explosive filler each.

It took a minimum of 4 Well Placed shells to take a bomber down. Without good placement, bombers could and did take dozens, even hundreds, of hits.

The same is true of an airliner - there is a huge difference in threat between the passenger cabin and the cargo hold.

[Greiger]

We are not going to be 100% protected from everything.  Ban nail clippers on airplanes and terrorists will use concealed explosives in shoes, search everyone's shoes while coming on board and they'll just conceal explosives in laptops, ban laptops as carry on luggage, and they'll just use basic explosive medium in their luggage without obvious wiring or metal and obtain the materials to quickly detonate it it in flight, mcguyvering thing's is a lot easier if you have time to test and practice with the makeshift materials beforehand. ban carry on luggage altogether and we'll get people with lumps of C4 in their pocket that can mcguyver together a detonator using things that are known to be on a plane.  Ban clothes on flights and we'll just get a person who jammed explosives in his or her rectum, point their ass at the plane's hull, and create the loudest fart ever.

This whole thing is stupid.  We are already doing far more to secure commercial airplanes than would be expected of the risk factors.  We're just overcompensating because people are unnaturally afraid of the things.  We aren't afraid of terrorists sabotaging some city highway overpass because we drive everyday, nothing bad could ever happen there.  But the potential for death and destruction is just as high, if not higher.  It takes more time, and possibly a bit more explosives depending on what kind of overpass and how heavily trafficked it is.  But you don't have to get that stuff on a plane either.

[Playergamer]

In other Trump admin news, NHS security chief Kelly says that he's considering expanding the laptop ban to ALL flights going TO AND FROM the US. I fail to see how that would keep us safe because all it does is put the potential bombs in the cargo hold, where they would be just as effective. Not to mention the concerns of having all those lithium batteries in the hold and the impact that it would have on the airlines.

A laptop is too small to blow up a whole airplane, but if you hold the bomb next to the side, you can rip the skin open which can cause all kind of troubles. On the other hand, a laptop in the middle of a pile of luggage won't do much good.

There actually was such an attempt on a Somalian plane last year but the plane survived because the terrorist blew up the bomb too soon.

The amount of explosives you can pack into a laptop is PLENTY to crash an airplane.

In WW2 the germans estimated it took an average of 4 30mm shells to down a b-17 bomber. Those 30mm shells had only 85 grams of high explosive filler each.

It took a minimum of 4 Well Placed shells to take a bomber down. Without good placement, bombers could and did take dozens, even hundreds, of hits.

The same is true of an airliner - there is a huge difference in threat between the passenger cabin and the cargo hold.

plus, remember that those cannon shells were bullets, moving at high velocity. A single bomb set off inside would probably require a good bit more explosive, especially considering that the weak points targeted by those fighters (elevator, flaps, cockpit) aren't accessible from inside. Yeah, you can hit the fuel tanks, but really, why bother blowing up a plane if you've got all that leg room from the exit row?

We are not going to be 100% protected from everything.  Ban nail clippers on airplanes and terrorists will use concealed explosives in shoes, search everyone's shoes while coming on board and they'll just conceal explosives in laptops, ban laptops as carry on luggage, and they'll just use basic explosive medium in their luggage without obvious wiring or metal and obtain the materials to quickly detonate it it in flight, mcguyvering thing's is a lot easier if you have time to test and practice with the makeshift materials beforehand. ban carry on luggage altogether and we'll get people with lumps of C4 in their pocket that can mcguyver together a detonator using things that are known to be on a plane.  Ban clothes on flights and we'll just get a person who jammed explosives in his or her rectum, point their ass at the plane's hull, and create the loudest fart ever.

This whole thing is stupid.  We are already doing far more to secure commercial airplanes than would be expected of the risk factors.  We're just overcompensating because people are unnaturally afraid of the things.  We aren't afraid of terrorists sabotaging some city highway overpass because we drive everyday, nothing bad could ever happen there.  But the potential for death and destruction is just as high, if not higher.  It takes more time, and possibly a bit more explosives depending on what kind of overpass and how heavily trafficked it is.  But you don't have to get that stuff on a plane either.

Remember that overpass in Atlanta that got knocked down? That was literally just a guy smoking. Imagine what a "terror cell" could do to American infrastructure.

[Greiger]

Remember that overpass in Atlanta that got knocked down? That was literally just a guy smoking. Imagine what a "terror cell" could do to American infrastructure.

Yea that's why I said only possibly more.  Big well maintained overpasses yea, they'll take a beating, but way I hear it a lot of highway bridges and overpasses and such have not even been touched by a maintenance crew since the american highway system was conceived.  A terrorist with a season of a simple online architecture course could probably tour the country and inform others of where to strike to cause as much damage with as little effort and resources as possible.

[Antioch]

Anyway, plenty of planes have been brought down by bombs in cargo holds....

Lockerby bombing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

and: Air India Flight 182 bombing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

to name just 2.

[Sheb]

We are not going to be 100% protected from everything.  Ban nail clippers on airplanes and terrorists will use concealed explosives in shoes, search everyone's shoes while coming on board and they'll just conceal explosives in laptops, ban laptops as carry on luggage, and they'll just use basic explosive medium in their luggage without obvious wiring or metal and obtain the materials to quickly detonate it it in flight, mcguyvering thing's is a lot easier if you have time to test and practice with the makeshift materials beforehand. ban carry on luggage altogether and we'll get people with lumps of C4 in their pocket that can mcguyver together a detonator using things that are known to be on a plane.  Ban clothes on flights and we'll just get a person who jammed explosives in his or her rectum, point their ass at the plane's hull, and create the loudest fart ever.

Is there a name for the fallacy of "A sufficiently determined and skill attacker can win, so we might as well not bother to protect"? It comes up again and again, when discussing stuff like gun right for exemple ("Why regulate gun? People will build them in their garage!")