Reply #109: Simply put, [View All]

[Pharlo]

you feel the scrambled fighter jets were an unnecessary security measure during a reported terrorist incident inside a mid flight plane. I disagree. I believe they were one of a series of measures implemented to increase US security by bringing down the plane if necessary.

To my limited knowledge, most security measures are multi-faceted approaches - secure door, armed air marshalls, scrambled fighter jets, increased airport 'security'.

If a terrorist group is determined to blow up a plane, the safety of the passengers is negligible. They're not hostages at that point. Whether they are dead before the plane hits the building or after, the terrorist doesn't care. If they're going to get in the way during the execution of the plan, take them out before. You have an enclosed air supply on an airplane. What everyday materials would be required to make a simple, yet effective, gas mask? What kind of gases/mixed chemicals would knock out a couple of hundred people - or, better yet make a lot of people extremely ill in a short time span (this would eliminate the challenge of getting into the cockpit before the pilots became unconscious - it may also eliminate the problem of getting the door open if the pilot opened the door to evaluate the situation)? Exactly what components of that door make it secure? And, how secure is 'secure'?

If someone were to ask me, I think that the cockpit should have a separate air supply from the rest of the plane. Because, if a terrorist can figure out a way to get materials for a gas mask and a chemical weapon on board a plane, and a way through that door (and that includes a way to get someone to voluntarily open that door), they have the plane.

One scenario in which scrambled fighter jets would be a measure of last resort. And, while it's easy enough to snark and say "Just some guy with a cigarette" after the incident is over, when it's occurring, you keep the worst case scenario in mind. And, in the government's (federal employees, not politicians) expert opinion (they have knowledgeable people who do think up 'worst case scenarios' day in and day out - whether the politicians in office pay heed to their work is another matter entirely), the worst case scenario still includes an instance where a terrorist can still take a plane and use it as a bomb.