The US has asked that foreign airlines and airports put guards on their planes when the US suspects a hijacking plot, but some airlines and air authorities don't like it. This whole hijacking terrorism thing is so 2001, and when did guns ever really solve anything? Besides, as Aftenposten points out, if we put armed guards on airplanes, the terrorists will have won:

And least of all the airlines need the difficulties the new security measures will create. This is of course not a decisive factor, but also these things count when the full extent of countermeasures against terrorism are being discussed. What happens is that the terrorist to a large extent succeeds at what they're trying to do, and this without committing a single act of terror. They create fear and uncertainty - and undermine the extensive travel economy - with psychological warfare, without firing a single gun.

It's easy to be a terrorist. If you blow up enemy civilians, you win. If the enemy makes it more difficult for you to blow up their civilians, you win. If enemy bombers blow up you, your leader, and all your training equipment, you win. By Aftenposten's logic, anyhow. But now who's more afraid of terrorism? We who believe that terrorism can and must be fought, even at a price, or those who believe that terrorism can not be fought, that no matter how we respond to terrorism we further the terrorist cause? The only way to escape this defeatism is denial. It can't be all that bad. Surely the Americans are overreacting.

It seems to me there are four good measures we can take against terrorist hijackings. The first is to prevent weapons from getting aboard. The second is to prevent hijackers from entering the cockpit. The third is for passengers to resist. The fourth is armed guards, to help them, (and to frighten hijackers). We're not there yet. I remember hearing a lot of stories about American reporters smuggling weapons onto planes, (but that was a while ago, perhaps they have improved?) I also think European passengers are less likely to resist a hijacking than Americans. For most of us it's still September 10. We'd carry at least a hope that a hijacking wasn't suicidal. Americans would not.

The problem with armed guards is that they could hit innocent passengers or shoot a hole in the plane, or that the terrorists could steal their weapon. (Not sure how easy it is to shoot a hole in a plane, but at least the windows would be vulnerable, or are they made of something sturdy?) But if we weigh that against the possibility of thousands of deaths, I think it's worth it. From the moment a hijacking begins, an airplane is basically one huge guided missile. The passengers' safety is no longer the first priority. That's not how we think in Europe, so it's no wonder many don't like the American demand. I suppose it will stay that way until the first suicide hijacking that involves Europeans. (But Americans shouldn't be smug about this - it's not like they didn't ignore 20 years of blinking red lights themselves.)

"Not sure how easy it is to shoot a hole in a plane, but at least the windows would be vulnerable, or are they made of something sturdy?"

It would be pretty difficult. Air Marshals use low velocity guns that are of little danger to the plane.

I think September 11 did involve large numbers of Europeans.

john: Yes, but it was still primarily an attack on the US. American planes, US soil, mostly American victims. What I mean is an attack of the same size that is aimed at European targets and/or has primarily European victims. That's what it would take to make Europeans take terrorism seriously, even where it's expensive, dangerous or inconvenient.

No, Bjorn, it would be America's fault for stirring things up. If we just continued talking or paying them off, we'd be fine.

"No, Bjorn, it would be America's fault for stirring things up. If we just continued talking or paying them off, we'd be fine."

If the school bully asks for your money and you give it to him, do you think that he'd stop asking for it in the future?

Just look at the fall of the Roman empire to see how useless paying-off the "barbarians" is.

Aid will shut the dogs' mouth for only so long.

Interestingly, a show on the US "Discovery" channel tested what happens when a you shoot a hole in a plane with a pistol: Not much.

They pressurized a salvaged jet body, then fired a 9mm pistol at the wall. There was a puff of air, but nothing catastrophic. They patched that hole and did it again, this time firing at a window: Again, nothing major.

I would have liked to see them test MULTIPLE shots, but I suspect the result would have been similar: nothing like what you see in the movies.

The problem with armed guards is that they could hit innocent passengers or shoot a hole in the plane, or that the terrorists could steal their weapon.

Hi, I'd like to clarify some of the topics in the quote above:

1) "Hitting innocent passengers" is highly unlikely. Federal Air Marshalls(FAMS) and to some degree, armed pilots are both held to a very high standard of accurate fire. This is reinforced by regular shooting practice and in the case of FAMS, monthly qualification.

2) The "shoot a hole in the plane" leading to losing aircraft pressure is a foolish myth spread by old TV movies. In reality, the aircraft air is sucked in from outside the plane through ducts. Plus, a few bullet holes in the aircraft fuselage lead to a slow leak of air and not the rapid air loss shown in movies. This is not a hazard, as it could be patched with duct tape.

3) Another myth is that "terrorists could steal their weapon", which is again highly unlikely. Air Marshalls, like all LEO (Law Enforcement officers) are trained in weapon retention. Weapon retention for most LEO often involves training in certain self-defense moves designed to trap the hand on the weapon or break / twist / disable the hand on the weapon.

I hope this information clears up these common misconceptions about Air Marshalls.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/577

Dar-al-harb, the house of war: EU: air marshals, January 9, 2004 07:20 AM

If Bjorn's post is any gauge Europeans still haven't gotten the message. The issue is about putting armed air marshals on international flights. Some Europeans are unimpressed. What happens is that