destructdisc@lemmy.world to Fuck Cars@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agoAmerica, exblainlemmy.worldimagemessage-square431linkfedilinkarrow-up11.35Karrow-down117
arrow-up11.33Karrow-down1imageAmerica, exblainlemmy.worlddestructdisc@lemmy.world to Fuck Cars@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 days agomessage-square431linkfedilink
minus-squareHCSOThrowaway@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·2 days agoThey already do the inspections for rail stations and they’re about 1/10th as annoying and time-consuming as the ones for airports. Trains just don’t have the capacity for a 9/11 so I don’t see that changing any time soon.
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 days ago Trains just don’t have the capacity for a 9/11 Not to bring down buildings, but in terms of terrorism they sure do. Any modern 9/11 attempt will be made by cargo jet. So protection against aircraft bringing down buildings is provided by the US airforce, not the TSA.
minus-squareHCSOThrowaway@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 days agoI feel like you said “No” and then agreed with me.
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoI agree with your whole statement, but disagree if it is broken up into separate parts. Passenger vector terrorism is equal on trains and planes (and busses to a much lesser extent). This is the TSAs area. Infrastructure damage is much higher on planes, but this also applies to the 10% of flights that are cargo and the TSA has no influence.
minus-squareHCSOThrowaway@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoFor whatever reason it’s just not equal in the US as far as I’m aware. Maybe it’s a benefit of a society who thinks trains are lame.
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoWhen the train’s average speed is 50mph and no-one uses them then the target isn’t big enough for large scale terror.
minus-squareHCSOThrowaway@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoYour position is very confusing.
minus-squareKnock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·1 day agoSorry. I should have lead with “Yes I agree”. If trains became less lame then the target would be more interesting for terrorists and the TSA might be more likely to set up shop.
They already do the inspections for rail stations and they’re about 1/10th as annoying and time-consuming as the ones for airports.
Trains just don’t have the capacity for a 9/11 so I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Not to bring down buildings, but in terms of terrorism they sure do.
Any modern 9/11 attempt will be made by cargo jet. So protection against aircraft bringing down buildings is provided by the US airforce, not the TSA.
I feel like you said “No” and then agreed with me.
I agree with your whole statement, but disagree if it is broken up into separate parts.
Passenger vector terrorism is equal on trains and planes (and busses to a much lesser extent). This is the TSAs area.
Infrastructure damage is much higher on planes, but this also applies to the 10% of flights that are cargo and the TSA has no influence.
For whatever reason it’s just not equal in the US as far as I’m aware. Maybe it’s a benefit of a society who thinks trains are lame.
When the train’s average speed is 50mph and no-one uses them then the target isn’t big enough for large scale terror.
Your position is very confusing.
Sorry. I should have lead with “Yes I agree”.
If trains became less lame then the target would be more interesting for terrorists and the TSA might be more likely to set up shop.
Probably, yeah.