From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Sep 13 2001 - 22:26:39 MDT
Joe Dees wrote:
> >Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:48:37 -0700
> > Adrian Tymes <wingcat@pacbell.net> Re: TERRORISM: looking for solutions extropians@extropy.orgReply-To: extropians@extropy.org
> >Joe Dees wrote:
> >> >From: Adrian Tymes <wingcat@pacbell.net>
> >
> >> >One of the better solutions I've heard today is to train the stewards
> >> >in security. Give them batons and tasers, normally concealed under
> >> >their uniforms (don't want to *look* threatening), and make sure they
> >> >know how to use them. The number of ways a passenger-turned-terrorist
> >> >can try to take over a plane is limited; most of them can probably be
> >> >programmed into simulators for training against. Main objective is to
> >> >prevent hijacking, but this might also be useful day-to-day in cases of
> >> >severe air rage.
> >> >
> >> This might work against a lone terrorist, but the cellphone calls
> >> that came from the planes indicated that there were as many as a
> >> half-dozen hijackers per plane.
> >
> >Fine. There's *how* many stewards?
> >
> Let's ask, and also ask about the height, weight, gender and combat training of the average stew.
H/W/G: some of the most effective martial artists I know are short,
light females. The difference? Combat training - which is what I'm
suggesting be supplied. (And attitude, granted, but the training can
teach them to control attitude as necessary.)
> >And the stewards could gang up on
> >each terrorist, while the terrorists would have to disperse since
> >they're monitoring all the passengers.
> >
> You seem to think that there are dozens of them per plane. Who have YOU been flying with?
<shrugs> Taking down one or two terrorists at a time should be easily
for a trained and properly armed team of three or four. Frankly, one
or two trained fighters can whip any small mob of gun-toting fanatics
randomly plucked from the dregs of society (those having the least to
lose by dying).
> >BTW, to those who suggested guns: I suggested batons and tasers because
> >they don't punch holes in the aircraft hull...and they tend to be less
> >deadly to any hostages or other bodies that happen to get in the way.
> >Killing an enemy is not always the best way to remove the threat they
> >represent.
> >
> In fact, the best way I've seen advocated onlist is cockpit security. But we're gonna have sky marshals anyway; let's hope they're not like elderly bank guards, and know how to retain and use the weapons they're issued, while avoiding depressurizing the plane in the process.
Which is why I also suggested recertifying the security training every
so often. Skills that are allowed to degrade to scraps aren't that
useful.
BTW, the reason I suggest this instead of a specific Sky Marshal: the
stewards will normally be out and about, justifying their employment
and not dozing off, if terrorists attack. Plus, arming the stewards
gaurantees you'll have more than one security officer; single-purpose
Sky Marshals would likely be reduced to just 1 for budget reasons (not
to mention, wasting space on the 99+% of flights where they are not
needed).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:37 MST