Reply to: So at the airport this morning...

[BoredBloke]

I hate sentences that start with the word "so".

So!

[OwlHoot]

Do you?

even if you only dent it the bridge will be closed for weeks for safety checks.

Yes - Didn't the IRA target Hammersmith Bridge, more than once actually?

And I seem to recall it was closed for quite some time a few years ago. But whether that was a direct result of the bombing or just for overdue repairs I don't recall.

[jmo21]

I hate sentences that start with the word "so".

[vetran]

Do you?

even if you only dent it the bridge will be closed for weeks for safety checks.

Strikes me if they truly wanted to cause mayhem then they could do it, look at Afghanistan & the IRA. From my limited understanding IED's seem fairly simple to produce.

Pylons & telegraph posts are also very easy targets in this age of battery powered grinders & chainsaws. IMHO -oops £chelon will love me.


I have the horrible feeling its like climate change there is a lot of money to be made and it keeps the proles under control.

[ForkBoy]

You need a flip of a lot of explosive to reliably blow up a bridge or a power station though, and that makes storage and transport more tricky.

Stolen lorry dumped across the railway line?
Big bag of thermite on a suspension bridge anchorage?

Hang on, there's a knock at the door ...

[Peoplesoft bloke]

If they wanted to cause real problems all they need to do is to start bombing infrastructure targets. Electricity substations, maybe bring down a few pylons or a motor way bridge. Easy targets, huge disruption.

You need a flip of a lot of explosive to reliably blow up a bridge or a power station though, and that makes storage and transport more tricky.

[DaveB]

I agree, that's the point I was trying to make but you made it better.

If they wanted to cause real problems all they need to do is to start bombing infrastructure targets. Electricity substations, maybe bring down a few pylons or a motor way bridge. Easy targets, huge disruption.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

snip
And they're probably doing more damage by simply "being a threat" and getting us all to be permanently suspicious of each other and go through these barmy restrictions day after day. Job done, I would say.

I agree, that's the point I was trying to make but you made it better.

[dang65]

It's an interesting question, how much it does deter would-be terrorists. We have very few attacks but is that because they have to spend a lot of time planning each attack, or that they aren't as interested in causing mischief as we're told?

I'm going for Option 2. How difficult can it really be to do terrorism? I mean, apart from something totally outrageous like 9/11. Maybe they just can't think of anything to top that. And they're probably doing more damage by simply "being a threat" and getting us all to be permanently suspicious of each other and go through these barmy restrictions day after day. Job done, I would say.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

It's an interesting question, how much it does deter would-be terrorists. We have very few attacks but is that because they have to spend a lot of time planning each attack, or that they aren't as interested in causing mischief as we're told?

Terrorists must be laughing - part of the objective is disruption. Think how many times the IRA disrupted schools, trains etc by threats vs actaul bombs

[scooterscot]

Here another one for you.,. what's to stop the entire plane being booked by terrorists? Only a dozen or so of them show up at check in commandeer the aircraft mid flight and slam it into a building?

[d000hg]

It may stop the casuals, loners and randoms, but it is no deterent to the serious and organised. I would not take a genious to figure out how to get enough liquids airside to make a device.

It's an interesting question, how much it does deter would-be terrorists. We have very few attacks but is that because they have to spend a lot of time planning each attack, or that they aren't as interested in causing mischief as we're told?

[The Lone Gunman]

But the point is terrorists know they have a good chance of being checked. Largely a deterrent methinks.

It may stop the casuals, loners and randoms, but it is no deterent to the serious and organised. I would not take a genious to figure out how to get enough liquids airside to make a device.

[d000hg]

A couple of months ago was asked to remove my shoes. I asked the guy what the criteria was for selecting who had to take their shoes off - he said "random"

I was so tempted to launch into "Have all these deterrents ever,ever actually resulted in stopping anybody?"

My feeling is the number of people caught by their schemes is 0.

But the point is terrorists know they have a good chance of being checked. Largely a deterrent methinks.

[bobhope]

A couple of months ago was asked to remove my shoes. I asked the guy what the criteria was for selecting who had to take their shoes off - he said "random"

I was so tempted to launch into "Have all these deterrents ever,ever actually resulted in stopping anybody?"

My feeling is the number of people caught by their schemes is 0.