Up in the Air

My instinct is to agree with Matt when he suggests that post-9/11, "airplanes have become relatively unattractive targets for terrorists," which means that "endlessly piling on more and more security measures to air travel is pointless." That said, there seems to be a persuasive argument (via Reihan, a few months back) for implementing different security measures than the ones we have now, focused less on passengers at the metal detectors and more on the planes sitting unguarded on the tarmac.

It's also worth noting that while one would assume that terrorists recognize that it's now easier, as Matt writes, to "blow up a train or a bus, open fire on a crowded subway station, try to hijack a truck carrying deadly chemicals, or do any number of additional things" than to muck around with airports and hijackings, it isn't entirely clear that they do recognize this. The lure of the airline attack (and the spectacular attack in general) seems to persist even in a climate where attacks on lower value targets would be far easier to pull off, and arguably just as damaging. From Richard Reid to the the British bomb plot to the idiots who wanted to attack JFK to the car bomb at the Glasgow airport, a disproportionate percentage of post-9/11 plots have involved planes and airports, even though trains, buses, shopping malls and other low-security targets would seem like more logical places to wreak havoc. Why this is I'm not sure - force of habit? a desire to disrupt global transportation? the symbolic appeal of striking at one of Western modernity's more visible technological achievements? - but it's something to keep in mind when you're suffering through the agonies of airport security.

Comments

Mothers have been forced to drink their own breast milk before boarding planes.

We're a country ruled by dimwits who think we're a bunch of spineless fraidy cats.

But then who else voted for George Bush in 2004? A coalition of cowards and amoral greedheads and Left Behind fans.

(Allow for some overlap between those groups.)

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 21, 2007 12:37 PM

Directly to Matthew Yglesias's point is the fact that the two London suicide bomb attacks and the Madrid attack were all directed against surface transport systems.

I suspect the reason some terrorists like planes is that any aviation incident is immediately an important news story. A car crashing into a building is sufficiently commonplace that it gets into the newspaper just before the funnies. A car crashing into an airport building, on the other hand, gets the first four pages of every newspaper in the world for the next three days.

The impression I have is that much of our airport security is pretence. The fact that there are so many reflexive responses - oh, X happened therefore we need to start doing Y - suggests to me that there is very little genuine thought going into precisely what the likely threats are and the measures needed to respond appropriately to them.

Posted by ndm | August 21, 2007 2:11 PM

I've thought a lot about this weird fixation that terrorists seem to have with attacking air travel, and I'm convinced that the "appeal of striking at one of Western modernity's more visible technological achievements" is closest to the mark. I suspect that the airplane is also a symbolic reminder of the ability of the United States to inject its armies and project its power into the Middle East. Finally, I wexpect that terrorists view the ability of Americans to fly without fear as part of our cultural self-confidence and aggressiveness, and that forcing us to avoid air travel must be gratifying in a way that attacking a NYC subway wouldn't achieve.

Posted by Jorge | August 21, 2007 4:12 PM

"Why this is I'm not sure - force of habit?"
No, just a lack intellectual ability. Other than Madrid and the first London bombing it doen't seem that any extremists have been able to follow the clear internet instructions on producing explosives. In the latest London attempt none of the "car bombs" contained actual explosive chemicals, the guys in New York wanted to set off a diesel explosion. They thought, from the movies, that gasses explode. It's been demonstated that a crashing airplane goes BOOM so every dumb terrorist knows it works. I have seen no indication that any of these guys are the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | August 21, 2007 7:11 PM

Roger Tompkins writes: "I have seen no indication that any of these guys are the brightest bulb in the chandelier."

Exactly right - but that doesn't prevent the dimwits behind "Homeland Stupidity" from trumpeting the arrests of stoned wannabes like the "Fort Dix" gang and those Miami Morons as big victories in the War On Terra. It would be funny if so many people didn't take it so seriously.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 21, 2007 9:32 PM

the symbolic appeal of striking at one of Western modernity's more visible technological achievements?

Jorge is right. Lee Harris wrote about this after 9/11 - the primary target audience for the spectacular attacks is other Muslims; Westerners are secondary targets. The point is to convince fellow Muslims that Islam is powerful - the "strong horse" that bin Laden talked about.

The impression I have is that much of our airport security is pretence.

It's not just pretense - it's because our view of security is technological. We focus on hazardous objects, and on technological ways of detecting them, rather than on trying to find hazardous people. It's also because we're so egalitarian - if anyone has to be inconvenienced, then everyone must be equally inconvenienced.

Posted by Mike S. | August 21, 2007 9:47 PM

S Mike writes: "It's also because we're so egalitarian - if anyone has to be inconvenienced, then everyone must be equally inconvenienced."

Now there's a load of crap. Quick, a show of hands - who believes that corporate fatcats traveling by private jet are "equally inconvenienced" under Homeland Stupidity policies?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 22, 2007 12:45 AM

I'd think a carbomb a week in any mid size american city would get a lot of attention and be tough to prevent.

Posted by judson | August 22, 2007 1:36 PM

You wouldn't even need the carbomb. Just shoot up a few day care centers and nursing homes in a few states and the country would lose its collective mind in a flash. Martial law would be just around the corner.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 22, 2007 6:01 PM

Mike's point is not crap. It's true that private planes are much less inconvenienced, and offer some security holes. As we all agree -- and I doubt this point was particularly more noted among Kerry voters than among Bush voters -- the current system is a farce, an appearance for appearance's sake by and large.

But the point that the present system exists in part to avoid making statistical decisions in how to probe people that might affect some folks more than others is undeniable. At the very least, younger men should get a lot more harrassment than old women. And, statistically, young women can probably be largely ignored as well.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | August 22, 2007 7:13 PM

Currently, this country is so fearful of an attack that any little scare would set off the whole nation into paranoia. However, any type of airplane crash or attack seems much more serious and deadly, even though it is more likely to crash a car than to die in the air. We just find airplane deaths more frightening and menacing.

Posted by Natalie | August 27, 2007 12:12 AM