Severe threat to the UK

[LeazesMag 0]

keep in mind these stats are for flights for the states

 

any given day there are 87,000 flights in the air over the US, so thats 31755000 per year (source http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp )

 

how many planes are blown up every year, I have no idea and could find no info but for the sake of argument lets say 100 which seems high I think we'd all remember if there were 100 planes blown out of the sky every year.

 

that gives a .000003 percent chance of being blown up by a terrorist every time you step on a plane.

 

i have to say i like those odds, and i like them enough to say that i don't want any of the freedom that i enjoy taken away because the terrorist color of the day has changed from yellow to orange.

 

but then what do i know.......

 

what the fuck are you babbling on about Do u want airport and terrorist security or not

 

 

pretty clear from my post...

 

 

I'd say so too in fact

[tooner 243]

keep in mind these stats are for flights for the states

 

any given day there are 87,000 flights in the air over the US, so thats 31755000 per year (source http://www.natca.org/mediacenter/bythenumbers.msp )

 

how many planes are blown up every year, I have no idea and could find no info but for the sake of argument lets say 100 which seems high I think we'd all remember if there were 100 planes blown out of the sky every year.

 

that gives a .000003 percent chance of being blown up by a terrorist every time you step on a plane.

 

i have to say i like those odds, and i like them enough to say that i don't want any of the freedom that i enjoy taken away because the terrorist color of the day has changed from yellow to orange.

 

but then what do i know.......

 

what the fuck are you babbling on about Do u want airport and terrorist security or not

 

 

pretty clear from my post...

 

 

I'd say so too in fact

 

 

<sounds of crickets>

[Happy Face 29]

lets say 100 which seems high

 

[tooner 243]

lets say 100 which seems high

 

<in my best goodfellas voice>

 

 

' am i a clown? how do i amuse you?....etc etc

[Happy Face 29]

lets say 100 which seems high

 

<in my best goodfellas voice>

 

 

' am i a clown? how do i amuse you?....etc etc

 

I wasn't laughing at you. I thought you meant it as a joke. It does seem extremely high. That's a plane going down every 3 days.

 

Looking at the history, in 21 years there's been two bombings on planes....

 

1994 Alas Chiricanas Flight 00901

2004 Russian aircraft bombings

 

Compared with 20 or so in the 40 years prior to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airliner_bombings

 

If anything it's a downward trend.

 

In terms of Hijackings, there were 12 notable occurences in all the 2000's.

 

This compares with 13 in the 90's, 16 in the 80's and 21 in the 70s.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notab...raft_hijackings

 

These reduced numbers go hand in hand with an exponential increase in the number of flights being flown.

 

Yet as these numbers dwindle, the panic whipped up seems to be inversely proportional to actual danger.

[Happy Face 29]

Applying that to your numbers for flights*.

 

There's been 27 hijackings/bombings in 20 years.

 

That's 1.35 a year.

 

You said 87,000 flights over the US...but the bombings/hijackings are worldwide so the number will be far lower in reality, but using those numbers give you a 0.000004% chance of being on one of those flights.

 

*You made a boob on your numbers btw, 100/31755000 = 0.000003. As a percentage that's 0.0003%. It made up for the factor of 100 your original estimate was out by like and got pretty close to the real number, so all's well that ends well .

Edited January 29, 2010 by Happy Face

[Rob W 0]

most bombs on planes used to be insurance jobs.....................

 

and the odd inconvenient Head of State or General............................

[LeazesMag 0]

most bombs on planes used to be insurance jobs.....................

 

and the odd inconvenient Head of State or General............................

 

daft twat

[Rob W 0]

true

 

people would insure their lives for zillions and then blow the plane (and themselves) up - first thing the accident boys used to do was to see who had how much recent insurance

[AgentAxeman 178]

In the light of the recent attempt to bring down a commercial aircraft by terrorists the English have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588 when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

 

The Scots raised their threat level from "P1ssed Off" to "Let's get the Bast*rds" They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

 

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability. It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert.

 

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout loudly and excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

 

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose".

 

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

 

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

 

Americans meanwhile and as usual are carrying out pre-emptive strikes, on all of their allies …. just in case.

[Happy Face 29]

To be fair they're damned if they do and dammned if they don't.

 

Look at 9/11. All the conspiracy theorists hammer the Bush era government/intelligence because they had seen increased chatter and new about the potential for an attack just days before it happened. Without anything concrete, nobody pushed it though.

 

Now the government send out a clear message indicating that perhaps the intelligence community are seeing some similar sort of activity and they get grief for that too because they can't say individual x is going to blow up plane y.

[LeazesMag 0]

To be fair they're damned if they do and dammned if they don't.

 

Look at 9/11. All the conspiracy theorists hammer the Bush era government/intelligence because they had seen increased chatter and new about the potential for an attack just days before it happened. Without anything concrete, nobody pushed it though.

 

Now the government send out a clear message indicating that perhaps the intelligence community are seeing some similar sort of activity and they get grief for that too because they can't say individual x is going to blow up plane y.

 

omg, that is one hell of an improvement in your perception.

[Happy Face 29]

To be fair they're damned if they do and dammned if they don't.

 

Look at 9/11. All the conspiracy theorists hammer the Bush era government/intelligence because they had seen increased chatter and new about the potential for an attack just days before it happened. Without anything concrete, nobody pushed it though.

 

Now the government send out a clear message indicating that perhaps the intelligence community are seeing some similar sort of activity and they get grief for that too because they can't say individual x is going to blow up plane y.

 

omg, that is one hell of an improvement in your perception.

 

I think it's probably more of an improvement in your perception of me, because my perception of the situation hasn't changed. The threat is still miniscule and i don't think a change in level should be an international news story.

[LeazesMag 0]

To be fair they're damned if they do and dammned if they don't.

 

Look at 9/11. All the conspiracy theorists hammer the Bush era government/intelligence because they had seen increased chatter and new about the potential for an attack just days before it happened. Without anything concrete, nobody pushed it though.

 

Now the government send out a clear message indicating that perhaps the intelligence community are seeing some similar sort of activity and they get grief for that too because they can't say individual x is going to blow up plane y.

 

omg, that is one hell of an improvement in your perception.

 

I think it's probably more of an improvement in your perception of me, because my perception of the situation hasn't changed. The threat is still miniscule and i don't think a change in level should be an international news story.

 

it's never too late .......

[Dr Gloom 21941]

blatant electioneering tbh

[LeazesMag 0]

To be fair they're damned if they do and dammned if they don't.

 

Look at 9/11. All the conspiracy theorists hammer the Bush era government/intelligence because they had seen increased chatter and new about the potential for an attack just days before it happened. Without anything concrete, nobody pushed it though.

 

Now the government send out a clear message indicating that perhaps the intelligence community are seeing some similar sort of activity and they get grief for that too because they can't say individual x is going to blow up plane y.

 

omg, that is one hell of an improvement in your perception.

 

I think it's probably more of an improvement in your perception of me, because my perception of the situation hasn't changed. The threat is still miniscule and i don't think a change in level should be an international news story.

 

If you accept the point in principle I would not disagree because it is correct, shame certain older people don't have the same perception, although whether or not it is an international news story - maybe not, but papers etc just need to fill space. You can argue that there is no point in informing terrorists the level has been raised, as it puts them on their guard, but it also can also deter them and raise awareness of the public. A bit of a minefield whichever way you look at it, but personally I think increased security is a good thing how can it be anything but ?

Edited February 12, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

personally I think increased security is a good thing how can it be anything but ?

 

Increased defense spending is a huge burden on the taxpayer, and threats such as this are used to justify that spending while (during economic downturns like the current one) all other spending is frozen or cut.

 

There is a constant barrage of press about the risks we face from terrorism in order to justify the tens of billions being pumped into the miltary/defense. But the facts are that one attack has been made on the country, it originated from within our own shores and was made in retaliation to our governments actions abroad.

 

I'm not daft enough to forget that supporting the war also brings in millions from the likes of BAE who's success relies on war being waged and who belong to an industry that employs hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in this country, but i don't think that's justification, though it's probably the only reasoning I wouldn't dispute.

[LeazesMag 0]

personally I think increased security is a good thing how can it be anything but ?

 

Increased defense spending is a huge burden on the taxpayer, and threats such as this are used to justify that spending while (during economic downturns like the current one) all other spending is frozen or cut.

 

There is a constant barrage of press about the risks we face from terrorism in order to justify the tens of billions being pumped into the miltary/defense. But the facts are that one attack has been made on the country, it originated from within our own shores and was made in retaliation to our governments actions abroad.

 

I'm not daft enough to forget that supporting the war also brings in millions from the likes of BAE who's success relies on war being waged and who belong to an industry that employs hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in this country, but i don't think that's justification, though it's probably the only reasoning I wouldn't dispute.

 

Good points. All ministers have their departments, and they all want money, in this case for airport security and defence spending. They do use means to justify expense, this is a game they all play, thats just the way of government.

 

The fact that only one attack has been made [since ?] in my opinion says we have good security. I realise some people would use such a statistic to play down the danger.

 

Unfortunately, if you are on the plane that gets bombed.....

 

Politically, while we realise there is only so much money you can spend, you can't afford to be complacent about it either and the public at large can't have enough awareness of it. IMO of course.

[Happy Face 29]

Good points. All ministers have their departments, and they all want money, in this case for airport security and defence spending. They do use means to justify expense, this is a game they all play, thats just the way of government.

 

The fact that only one attack has been made [since ?] in my opinion says we have good security. I realise some people would use such a statistic to play down the danger.

 

Unfortunately, if you are on the plane that gets bombed.....

 

Politically, while we realise there is only so much money you can spend, you can't afford to be complacent about it either and the public at large can't have enough awareness of it. IMO of course.

 

Since Lockerbie I guess.

 

"It works" is one of the least convincing justifications imo.

 

I think ANY averted disasters would and should be BIG news, however, I'm struggling to think of a single publicised occurence of airport security intervening and making a save. If they had, I would have thought that kind of news would be jumped on to justify extra security, but it hasn't happened, so they can't.

 

It's an expensive method of providing the illusion of safety wheras most plots are foiled only by complete luck. Not to say there aren't instances where the intelligence services have done excellent work, but only that kind of work can reap those kinds of rewards imo. Spot checks are useless and obligatory intestine searches are an invasion of privacy so extreme the terrorists will be well pleased with themselves.

[LeazesMag 0]

Good points. All ministers have their departments, and they all want money, in this case for airport security and defence spending. They do use means to justify expense, this is a game they all play, thats just the way of government.

 

The fact that only one attack has been made [since ?] in my opinion says we have good security. I realise some people would use such a statistic to play down the danger.

 

Unfortunately, if you are on the plane that gets bombed.....

 

Politically, while we realise there is only so much money you can spend, you can't afford to be complacent about it either and the public at large can't have enough awareness of it. IMO of course.

 

Since Lockerbie I guess.

 

"It works" is one of the least convincing justifications imo.

 

I think ANY averted disasters would and should be BIG news, however, I'm struggling to think of a single publicised occurence of airport security intervening and making a save. If they had, I would have thought that kind of news would be jumped on to justify extra security, but it hasn't happened, so they can't.

 

It's an expensive method of providing the illusion of safety wheras most plots are foiled only by complete luck. Not to say there aren't instances where the intelligence services have done excellent work, but only that kind of work can reap those kinds of rewards imo. Spot checks are useless and obligatory intestine searches are an invasion of privacy so extreme the terrorists will be well pleased with themselves.

 

Glasgow ?

 

They do not tell you/us about the averted ones, whatever the number small or large, because they deal with sources of intelligence etc and these things also cost a lot of money and time to set up and run. This is highly classified stuff HF.

[Happy Face 29]

Good points. All ministers have their departments, and they all want money, in this case for airport security and defence spending. They do use means to justify expense, this is a game they all play, thats just the way of government.

 

The fact that only one attack has been made [since ?] in my opinion says we have good security. I realise some people would use such a statistic to play down the danger.

 

Unfortunately, if you are on the plane that gets bombed.....

 

Politically, while we realise there is only so much money you can spend, you can't afford to be complacent about it either and the public at large can't have enough awareness of it. IMO of course.

 

Since Lockerbie I guess.

 

"It works" is one of the least convincing justifications imo.

 

I think ANY averted disasters would and should be BIG news, however, I'm struggling to think of a single publicised occurence of airport security intervening and making a save. If they had, I would have thought that kind of news would be jumped on to justify extra security, but it hasn't happened, so they can't.

 

It's an expensive method of providing the illusion of safety wheras most plots are foiled only by complete luck. Not to say there aren't instances where the intelligence services have done excellent work, but only that kind of work can reap those kinds of rewards imo. Spot checks are useless and obligatory intestine searches are an invasion of privacy so extreme the terrorists will be well pleased with themselves.

 

Glasgow ?

 

They do not tell you/us about the averted ones, whatever the number small or large, because they deal with sources of intelligence etc and these things also cost a lot of money and time to set up and run. This is highly classified stuff HF.

 

There was no intervention by anyone in the Glasgow attack was there? Two mentalists set fire to their car full of propane cannisters and drove it towards the terminal. This followed on from their original plan (to set off two bombs in London a day earlier) being scuppered only when an ambulence crew saw smoke coming from one of the cars.

[LeazesMag 0]

Good points. All ministers have their departments, and they all want money, in this case for airport security and defence spending. They do use means to justify expense, this is a game they all play, thats just the way of government.

 

The fact that only one attack has been made [since ?] in my opinion says we have good security. I realise some people would use such a statistic to play down the danger.

 

Unfortunately, if you are on the plane that gets bombed.....

 

Politically, while we realise there is only so much money you can spend, you can't afford to be complacent about it either and the public at large can't have enough awareness of it. IMO of course.

 

Since Lockerbie I guess.

 

"It works" is one of the least convincing justifications imo.

 

I think ANY averted disasters would and should be BIG news, however, I'm struggling to think of a single publicised occurence of airport security intervening and making a save. If they had, I would have thought that kind of news would be jumped on to justify extra security, but it hasn't happened, so they can't.

 

It's an expensive method of providing the illusion of safety wheras most plots are foiled only by complete luck. Not to say there aren't instances where the intelligence services have done excellent work, but only that kind of work can reap those kinds of rewards imo. Spot checks are useless and obligatory intestine searches are an invasion of privacy so extreme the terrorists will be well pleased with themselves.

 

Glasgow ?

 

They do not tell you/us about the averted ones, whatever the number small or large, because they deal with sources of intelligence etc and these things also cost a lot of money and time to set up and run. This is highly classified stuff HF.

 

There was no intervention by anyone in the Glasgow attack was there? Two mentalists set fire to their car full of propane cannisters and drove it towards the terminal. This followed on from their original plan (to set off two bombs in London a day earlier) being scuppered only when an ambulence crew saw smoke coming from one of the cars.

 

yes, you are right. I remember now. Shows nothing is 100% safe though doesn't it ?

[Happy Face 29]

Good points. All ministers have their departments, and they all want money, in this case for airport security and defence spending. They do use means to justify expense, this is a game they all play, thats just the way of government.

 

The fact that only one attack has been made [since ?] in my opinion says we have good security. I realise some people would use such a statistic to play down the danger.

 

Unfortunately, if you are on the plane that gets bombed.....

 

Politically, while we realise there is only so much money you can spend, you can't afford to be complacent about it either and the public at large can't have enough awareness of it. IMO of course.

 

Since Lockerbie I guess.

 

"It works" is one of the least convincing justifications imo.

 

I think ANY averted disasters would and should be BIG news, however, I'm struggling to think of a single publicised occurence of airport security intervening and making a save. If they had, I would have thought that kind of news would be jumped on to justify extra security, but it hasn't happened, so they can't.

 

It's an expensive method of providing the illusion of safety wheras most plots are foiled only by complete luck. Not to say there aren't instances where the intelligence services have done excellent work, but only that kind of work can reap those kinds of rewards imo. Spot checks are useless and obligatory intestine searches are an invasion of privacy so extreme the terrorists will be well pleased with themselves.

 

Glasgow ?

 

They do not tell you/us about the averted ones, whatever the number small or large, because they deal with sources of intelligence etc and these things also cost a lot of money and time to set up and run. This is highly classified stuff HF.

 

There was no intervention by anyone in the Glasgow attack was there? Two mentalists set fire to their car full of propane cannisters and drove it towards the terminal. This followed on from their original plan (to set off two bombs in London a day earlier) being scuppered only when an ambulence crew saw smoke coming from one of the cars.

 

yes, you are right. I remember now. Shows nothing is 100% safe though doesn't it ?

 

Exactly.

 

In the last 3 years since the attack mentioned above we've increased defence spending by 15% and justified it as keeping us safe though.

 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...nceSpending.htm

[LeazesMag 0]

Good points. All ministers have their departments, and they all want money, in this case for airport security and defence spending. They do use means to justify expense, this is a game they all play, thats just the way of government.

 

The fact that only one attack has been made [since ?] in my opinion says we have good security. I realise some people would use such a statistic to play down the danger.

 

Unfortunately, if you are on the plane that gets bombed.....

 

Politically, while we realise there is only so much money you can spend, you can't afford to be complacent about it either and the public at large can't have enough awareness of it. IMO of course.

 

Since Lockerbie I guess.

 

"It works" is one of the least convincing justifications imo.

 

I think ANY averted disasters would and should be BIG news, however, I'm struggling to think of a single publicised occurence of airport security intervening and making a save. If they had, I would have thought that kind of news would be jumped on to justify extra security, but it hasn't happened, so they can't.

 

It's an expensive method of providing the illusion of safety wheras most plots are foiled only by complete luck. Not to say there aren't instances where the intelligence services have done excellent work, but only that kind of work can reap those kinds of rewards imo. Spot checks are useless and obligatory intestine searches are an invasion of privacy so extreme the terrorists will be well pleased with themselves.

 

Glasgow ?

 

They do not tell you/us about the averted ones, whatever the number small or large, because they deal with sources of intelligence etc and these things also cost a lot of money and time to set up and run. This is highly classified stuff HF.

 

There was no intervention by anyone in the Glasgow attack was there? Two mentalists set fire to their car full of propane cannisters and drove it towards the terminal. This followed on from their original plan (to set off two bombs in London a day earlier) being scuppered only when an ambulence crew saw smoke coming from one of the cars.

 

yes, you are right. I remember now. Shows nothing is 100% safe though doesn't it ?

 

Exactly.

 

In the last 3 years since the attack mentioned above we've increased defence spending by 15% and justified it as keeping us safe though.

 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...nceSpending.htm

 

 

What price security though ? You have just quoted an example since Lockerbie that could have been a bigger disaster. Does this warrant more money spent on airport security ? This is political. The NHS, Education, Transport etc, they all could do with more money - some of them could be managed better too - but where do you draw the line ? How much of your taxes would you be prepared to pay ? Some people are prepared to pay for this, and some aren't [but still expect it to still be a good "service"].

[Happy Face 29]

 

yes, you are right. I remember now. Shows nothing is 100% safe though doesn't it ?

 

Exactly.

 

In the last 3 years since the attack mentioned above we've increased defence spending by 15% and justified it as keeping us safe though.

 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...nceSpending.htm

 

 

What price security though? You have just quoted an example since Lockerbie that could have been a bigger disaster. Does this warrant more money spent on airport security ? This is political. The NHS, Education, Transport etc, they all could do with more money - some of them could be managed better too - but where do you draw the line ? How much of your taxes would you be prepared to pay ? Some people are prepared to pay for this, and some aren't [but still expect it to still be a good "service"].

 

The two bold questions seem to me to be contradictions. How do you define "security" in the second one? The absolute certainty that we'll be safe on the tube, the terminal or the plane? We agree that's impossible. For that reason I would not have advocated any significant increase in security spending either following 9/11 or 7/7. Certainly not at a rate higher than increases in education, health or even transport spending. I don't believe that either of those events made Great Britain an inherently more dangerous place to live.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Happy Face