Is aviation security mostly for show?
by Volker Weber
Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy a country's way of life; it's only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage. The more we undermine our own laws, the more we convert our buildings into fortresses, the more we reduce the freedoms and liberties at the foundation of our societies, the more we're doing the terrorists' job for them.
Comments
I would wish somebody listened to Bruce in the appropriate places.
I fully agree because security measures are always reactive, never proactive.
When nations live in fear instead of joy, terrorists have achieved their goals.
And this really works - a colleague of mine is afraid to use public transport after the Madrid bomb.
Volker, best wishes for 2010. Wie waren die Crossies? :-)
Good article but you'll never get a government spokesman to admit it. I'm in favour of profiling. Then us short, fat, balding midle aged white blokes can go back to strolling onto aircraft with our hipflasks and leathermans again.
Agree on all counts, except the use of the word "aviation" as opposed to "airport" in the title.
Aviation security is about a lot more than avoiding terrorist attacks. Actually, most aviation security is absolute unrelated to anything involving "terror" - unless airline traffic in general scares you :-)
BTW, nice comment here.
