Originally Posted by
ATNotts
I do have some sympathy with this position. Whether an incident happens, the authorities always react to it, essentially locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Take not allowing traffic to stop in front of (UK) airport terminals - because a pair of not overly bright terrorists tried to drive a 4x4 into Glasgow airport's terminal. Sure, the great big concrete blocks will deter a repeat, but supposing the next candidates decide to blow their 4x4 up in the confines of a multistorey car park - do we then ban cars from them? The carnage could be equally as great.
Terrorists, at least the brains of the outfits, aren't stupid, they are often well educated and are unlikely to use the same modus operandii twice. Putting ever tighter restrictions in place following each event, ensures that the terrorist wins, without losing a single operative.
Surely the way ahead is to have a more targeted covert approach to security rather than the blanket approach as happens today.
The covert approach is already there. But hey it is not really obvious..... because it is covert and if you do nothing wrong you don't pick it up.
As for preventing cars from driving in to the building, I am pretty sure that is still a good idea. Cynical as it may sound, blowing a car up in a multistory park wouldn't get the terrorists enough impact or death.
It is not logical to say we shouldn't screen for liquids because terrorists won't use them again after the first attempt. There are myriad variations on a theme so security has to evolve with it.
I have yet to go through a checkpoint where I have felt oppressed. And it usually done in seconds if you prepare properly.