More support for a natural look.
On a more serious note this continues to highlight our entirely reactive approach to these issues. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in just the US to try to improve air travel security in specific and homeland security in general. I think the kindest assessment would be that our results have been mixed at best and a joke at worst.
What specific counter measure would we use to minimize the risk of suicide bombers with surgically implanted devices? I don't think we're going to CAT scan or MRI everyone going into the airport.
A passenger exposed to a highly communicable biological agent would also easily bypass our screening system, and the list of ways to defeat air port screening are long indeed.
Our refineries and chemical plants are still vulnerable and our sea ports and other ports of entry are positively porous.
Does any one see the US federal government ever getting a handle on this?
Of all the stuff we gotta worry about nowadays, now we gotta worry about [exploding] boobs?
Glenn Beck exploded?!?!?
|
Of all the stuff we gotta worry about nowadays, now we gotta worry about [exploding] boobs?Glenn Beck exploded?!?!?
I wish...but then again if he exploded, the tin-foil industry would tank...we can't afford to lose any more jobs.
|
|
On a more serious note this continues to highlight our entirely reactive approach to these issues. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in just the US to try to improve air travel security in specific and homeland security in general. I think the kindest assessment would be that our results have been mixed at best and a joke at worst.
What specific counter measure would we use to minimize the risk of suicide bombers with surgically implanted devices? I don't think we're going to CAT scan or MRI everyone going into the airport.
A passenger exposed to a highly communicable biological agent would also easily bypass our screening system, and the list of ways to defeat air port screening are long indeed.
Our refineries and chemical plants are still vulnerable and our sea ports and other ports of entry are positively porous.
Does any one see the US federal government ever getting a handle on this?
If we can't check for everything, why check at all? Security is, by and large, a reactive industry. There is simply no way to plan for every eventuality...shoe bomber struck? All shoes go through the X-ray (including my 9 mo olds >.<). Guy accidentally catches his dick on fire trying to blow up the plane? Full body scans. Docs are putting in explosive implants? Only women with mastectomies can fly?
Unless we go to the drastic lengths you've mentioned (full body CT and MRI or, alternatively, invasive strip and cavity searches), there will be no way for security to keep up.
On a more serious note this continues to highlight our entirely reactive approach to these issues. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in just the US to try to improve air travel security in specific and homeland security in general. I think the kindest assessment would be that our results have been mixed at best and a joke at worst.
What specific counter measure would we use to minimize the risk of suicide bombers with surgically implanted devices? I don't think we're going to CAT scan or MRI everyone going into the airport.
A passenger exposed to a highly communicable biological agent would also easily bypass our screening system, and the list of ways to defeat air port screening are long indeed.
Our refineries and chemical plants are still vulnerable and our sea ports and other ports of entry are positively porous.
Does any one see the US federal government ever getting a handle on this?
Your thoughts, BT? I'd like to see some of your ideas on this one.
Fox is still trying to call them homicide bombers? I thought they gave up on that silliness when they didn't find the weapons of mass destructions where they promised they would be.
Speaking of, they do butt implants as well. So what do we call those? Weapons of Ass destruction?
|
|
Fox is still trying to call them homicide bombers? I thought they gave up on that silliness when they didn't find the weapons of mass destructions where they promised they would be.
Speaking of, they do butt implants as well. So what do we call those? Weapons of Ass destruction?
Bad pun is bad. (although i'll admit i giggled a lil)
On a more serious note this continues to highlight our entirely reactive approach to these issues. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in just the US to try to improve air travel security in specific and homeland security in general. I think the kindest assessment would be that our results have been mixed at best and a joke at worst.
What specific counter measure would we use to minimize the risk of suicide bombers with surgically implanted devices? I don't think we're going to CAT scan or MRI everyone going into the airport.
A passenger exposed to a highly communicable biological agent would also easily bypass our screening system, and the list of ways to defeat air port screening are long indeed.
Our refineries and chemical plants are still vulnerable and our sea ports and other ports of entry are positively porous.
Does any one see the US federal government ever getting a handle on this?
If we can't check for everything, why check at all? Security is, by and large, a reactive industry. There is simply no way to plan for every eventuality...shoe bomber struck? All shoes go through the X-ray (including my 9 mo olds >.<). Guy accidentally catches his dick on fire trying to blow up the plane? Full body scans. Docs are putting in explosive implants? Only women with mastectomies can fly?
Unless we go to the drastic lengths you've mentioned (full body CT and MRI or, alternatively, invasive strip and cavity searches), there will be no way for security to keep up.
We know that we won't go to those lengths, but we will find new and interesting ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars.
Oh my EYES!!!!!
Oh my EYES!!!!!
That's me as a 3 month old in a topless bar.
Oh my EYES!!!!!That's me as a 3 month old in a topless bar.
You must have been hungry for plastic fruit.
Consider the source.
It's all about making people as fearful as possible.
Fun.
I gather the Sun is something of a rag in the UK?
You do understand that this is not a new concept by any means, right? This is an issue that simply wasn't paid attention to until the underwear bomber.
Every major security failing we have had has been predicted by intelligence and security professionals well before it happened.
We tend to vacillate between poorly understood fears and the irrational faith that "It can't happen here." or "It won't happen to me.".
Ironically many of the risk management, law enforcement, counter intelligence professionals and intelligence professionals who predicted 9-11 and further attacks on the WTC were written off as fear mongers or nuts.
Then when it happened politicians in both parties waved their hands and said, "How come nobody saw this coming?" just like we did with the bank collapse.
The professionals who clearly predicted these events then shook their heads and went back to doing their jobs so they could once again be ignored.
We keep repeating this cycle for all kinds of policy problems.
We know that we won't go to those lengths, but we will find new and interesting ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars.We could roll the MRIs and CTs into healthcare as "preventative" procedures...kill two birds with one stone!
Groooaaan.
I feel like Kip on Futurama.
Consider the source.
From the man who has a link to the Daily Kos on his blog. ;)
This just in: Experts warn that terrorists might use explosive suppositories to blow up planes.
From the man who has a link to the Daily Kos on his blog. ;)Consider the source.
.............
*goes out to weep*
Your thoughts, BT? I'd like to see some of your ideas on this one.On a more serious note this continues to highlight our entirely reactive approach to these issues. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in just the US to try to improve air travel security in specific and homeland security in general. I think the kindest assessment would be that our results have been mixed at best and a joke at worst.
What specific counter measure would we use to minimize the risk of suicide bombers with surgically implanted devices? I don't think we're going to CAT scan or MRI everyone going into the airport.
A passenger exposed to a highly communicable biological agent would also easily bypass our screening system, and the list of ways to defeat air port screening are long indeed.
Our refineries and chemical plants are still vulnerable and our sea ports and other ports of entry are positively porous.
Does any one see the US federal government ever getting a handle on this?
In broad strokes, we simply can't even come close to hardening all of our incredibly vulnerable soft targets. Furthermore we can't make every gathering place a fortress, so malls, mass transit, schools, work places with large concentrations of people, hospitals, etc. are going to continue to be very vulnerable.
We probably (and I might add hopefully) will never develop and internal and external intelligence system that is so effective and omnipresent that it can intercept the majority or minor attacks in perpetuity (without becoming an omnipresent police state).
In brief we need to rebuild a national civil defense and awareness discipline. We need to raise the individual level of awareness and preparedness dramatically on a national scale without fear mongering.
This is an immense challenge but the alternative is likely to be utterly ineffective national security like we have now at the expense of trillions of dollars and constantly shrinking civil liberties, or the other direction would be more and more draconian measures in the name our safety. I think these are both bad ways to go.
Obviously this is not a binary choice. This doesn't mean that we should ignore port and infrastructural security. I doubt any level of individual vigilance would prevent a nuke from coming over on a cargo plane or ship. However our current security structure makes it exceeding unlikely that we would intercept such a device in any case. So much is imported into this country it is unlikely that we will ever meaningfully inspect more than a minute fraction of goods and raw materials coming into this country unless we are willing to commit staggering resources to do so.
There is a decent amount of minutia that can be fine tuned. There are specific things that can be improved in specific areas, but so much of this gets lost in a massive bureaucracy particularly in DHS and TSA.
One of the biggest potential challenges we have are suicide bombers and backpack/satchel type bombers as well as active shooters. They require a very small investment in resources beyond the bomber/shooter, and they are nearly imposable to intercept.
A USS Cole type attack against a laden oil tanker in a US port, 3 guys with AKs and satchel charges attacking a chemical plant or refinery or a power plant, one guy could place half a dozen pipe bombs in a subway line in under an hour easily, a guy with 4 hand grenades and a couple of pistols in the mall at Christmas, 2 guys with AKs at a college football game, these are all things that we are very poorly prepared for in the US. They are a tiny fraction of low profile low resource attacks that would be very difficult to prevent.
We have been so wasteful and ineffective in our reaction to domestic and international terrorist threats for the past 18 or so years that it's hard to know where to even begin.
This just in: Experts warn that terrorists might use explosive suppositories to blow up planes.
That's not new either.
I gather the Sun is something of a rag in the UK?Yes, and this is very fitting considering what they put on page 3.
OK what's on page 3?
|
|
OK what's on page 3?I gather the Sun is something of a rag in the UK?Yes, and this is very fitting considering what they put on page 3.
Tits. The Sun always has a topless model on page 3. The nwespaper has been described in a comedy sketch as "b%!%*#&s with tits in". But it's not as bad as the Daily Sport.
This just in: Experts warn that terrorists might use explosive suppositories to blow up planes.
Stop giving them ideas! >(
When I read the thread title, I thought perhaps the explosions were spontaneous. That thought was much scarier than the actual article.
t%%*. The Sun always has a topless model on page 3. The nwespaper has been described in a comedy sketch as "b*%#@%@s with t%%* in". But it's not as bad as the Daily Sport.OK what's on page 3?I gather the Sun is something of a rag in the UK?Yes, and this is very fitting considering what they put on page 3.
Hmmm I'm conflicted. That probably doesn't raise their credibility, but Hustler, Playboy and Penthouse actually did some good civil liberties reporting back in the day.
In any case it's not unusual for the media to pick up on something like this that has been looked at in threat assessment and risk management for many years, and then act like they've broken some new story.
Shrug.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The Sun always has a topless model on page 3.
Hence "Page 3 girls."
Explosive experts allegedly told MI5 that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN could blow "a considerable hole" in an airline's skin, causing it to crash.
Hence the 4 ounce limit on liquids. Which begs the question, what can those 4 ounces do?
The Sun always has a topless model on page 3.Hence "Page 3 girls."
Explosive experts allegedly told MI5 that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN could blow "a considerable hole" in an airline's skin, causing it to crash.Hence the 4 ounce limit on liquids. Which begs the question, what can those 4 ounces do?
Quite a bit, but it tends to be more technically demanding than most people realize.
We've been lucky that our opfor hasn't radicalized and deployed a couple of creative and motivated chemical engineers because there are a lot of ways to put a big boom in a small package particularly if safety is low on your list of considerations.
Also it's pretty easy to smuggle more than 4 oz of liquid material rectally, but it's much easier to work with someone who works in the sterile area of an airport (say in the gift shop or aircraft cleaning crew) to get a much more significant device on an air craft.
Packages air shipped with undeclared hazardous materials or a purpose designed explosive device are a real threat right now too due to our over-dependence on trusted shipper processes and security protocols.
Franky we are just fortunate that the underwear bomber was poorly trained and technically non-proficient, but there are lots of ways to bring down air craft, and there are plenty of softer more attractive targets than air craft.
Consider the source.
It's all about making people as fearful as possible.
Fun.
I take anything Faux News says with about a ton off Salt..even more if it's source is the Sun..which is also owned by the Great Satan Murdoch.
I hear that these surgeries will be covered by Obama's new Health Care bill. That is why he really wanted to pass it. You were told he was really a muslim wanting to destroy america, now you've gone and given him the tools. Shame on you, USA!
I take anything Faux News says with about a ton off Salt..even more if it's source is the Sun..which is also owned by the Great Satan Murdoch.Consider the source.
It's all about making people as fearful as possible.
Fun.
OK. Let's say I concede for the sake of argument that Fox, The Sun, and MI5 are all bad sources.
These scenarios are still achievable depending on the level of motivation and technical competence of the operator.
EDIT: Of course there are a lot easier ways to achieve the objective than explosive implants.
I'm glad to stay abstinent until marriage, so that I won't be the guy that accidentally sets them off in foreplay or grabs 'em on a dare.
When, oh when will we finally be safe?
Short answer: Never, because there's no such thing as safe.
We can however, stop being scared. Then maybe we'll find out there's more to motivate us in life than fear.
When, oh when will we finally be safe?
Short answer: Never, because there's no such thing as safe.
We can however, stop being scared. Then maybe we'll find out there's more to motivate us in life than fear.
Life is an exercise in hazard analysis and risk management; most people just don't know it.
Most people just hide behind the illusion of, "It won't happen to me.".
Then when "it" happens they wonder, "How could this happen to me."
I'm willing to take my chances with the exploding boob thing. It's not that I don't think it could ever happen to me... I'm just morbidly attracted to the idea that my official cause of death could one day be death by mammary.
I think I might even pick that one off a list.
I'm willing to take my chances with the exploding boob thing. It's not that I don't think it could ever happen to me... I'm just morbidly attracted to the idea that my official cause of death could one day be death by mammary.
I think I might even pick that one off a list.
:) LOL!
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm not saying that a boob isn't a smart place to smuggle a bomb.
I'm sure there are tons of different ways to bomb a plane I haven't thought about.
I don't really see the point of me worrying about it all that much.
I distrust those who profit from my fear, that's all I'm trying to say.
I'm not saying that a boob isn't a smart place to smuggle a bomb.
I'm sure there are tons of different ways to bomb a plane I haven't thought about.
I don't really see the point of me worrying about it all that much.
I distrust those who profit from my fear, that's all I'm trying to say.
I would say your distrust is prudent. Politicians have few tools more effective than fear, and both parties continue to use it incessantly. We are going to see a lot more of it. Skepticism is a virtue.
The odds of being killed in a terror attack are minute. I just think our entire policy approach to the issue is a failure.
We have spent vast sums of money, and we've lost more of our privacy and freedom than most folks know. We really aren't much safer.
I was hoping this was a Seoni vs Powergirl thread. :-(
I'm with Eric Mona on this one. Fox is garbage. Not because they are biased, but because they are flat out liars and distorters of the truth.
I was hoping this was a Seoni vs Powergirl thread. :-(
I have reliable information that Jenny Poussin(curently having her Seoni costume made) may in fact be concealing explosive devices about her person and hereby volunteer myself to search for them.
I have reliable information that Jenny Poussin(curently having her Seoni costume made) may in fact be concealing explosive devices about her person and hereby volunteer myself to search for them.I was hoping this was a Seoni vs Powergirl thread. :-(
You're a brave, brave man, Wellard. You do all us DMs proud.
Somebodies gotta do it..
It's not a simple problem, keeping people safe.
If you start at the detection process, there are basically four ways to get information about an impending attack.
First, you can make random searches. This is the classic border control idea. Let's just agree that it's not a very good method, but from time to time it may turn something up. Note, however, that if you control traffic across something as vast as the Canadian border, you're looking at minuscule chances of prevention. Even checking every road that crosses the border is a mammoth undertaking.
Second, you can get tipped off by someone who sees something going on. Last I saw a figure about this, it was 75% of all anti-terrorist information. However, this requires TRUST. If the government, police and other authorities show the people they do NOT trust the people, this source of information is going to dwindle. Would you report something if doing so could well get you under suspicion for involvement?
Third, you can get information from other countries, agencies and so on. This is problematic because it's always doubtful why they tell you, and has political consequences.
Fourth, you can use modern computers to dig through data you have forced people to make public, trusting the computers to tell you when something bad is going to happen. The problem here is one of mathematics. If you check millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of people, for a subset that is rare enough (terrorists number in the tens or hundreds), you're not only going to miss most of those, you're going to accuse innocents numbering orders of magnitude above what they should. In the example figures above, you might find one or two of the terrorists, while you accuse several million people of terrorism wrongly. That is, put simply, not acceptable according to any standards. It is also going to destroy most of the trust I was talking about above, leading to a net loss of useful information, and likely an increase in terrorist act frequency.
Given this, there is a hard choice to make. Either the government makes it clear that the cost of trying to make terrorist attacks impossible is far too high, and acknowledge that there is a risk of such, though a very slim one. This will lead to better relations with the public, and a decrease in terrorist attacks. The economy will also improve, since people don't need to spend a lot of time making the wheels turn, and the costs of the security hysteria can be mitigated.
Or the government pushes the current concept further, and waits for the increase in bombings, further destruction of the economy, and so on.
As someone once said: There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
As someone once said: There is nothing to fear but fear itself.
But FDR didn't know about incendiary bosoms.
On a serious note, great post.
As someone once said: There is nothing to fear but fear itself.But FDR didn't know about incendiary bosoms.
On a serious note, great post.
+1