Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Could British invention foil terror bombs?

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 59 posts

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#11

Post by mseebach »

Totoradio wrote: post #2

I don't know if this device works, but this is just wrong: >"I'm sorry to say, but the Brussels attack, this would have instantly sorted out the terrorists before they came into the terminal, and similarly the concert in Paris," he says. "If it had been on the doors there, it would have stopped people getting in." The terrorists who attacked the Bataclan didn't arrive as simple concert goers, they had AK-47s and shot…

An effective deployment of the device would probably involve a sort of sluice gate setup, that will detect traffic through an outer perimeter and, when triggered, seals an inner perimeter. The distance between the two is designed to be greater than that which can be covered on foot in the time the device takes to make a detection.

That, of course, ignores a central lesson of the Brussels attacks: They happened before security. This device might make it reasonably hard to get explosives into an airport building and concerts halls (because thousands theatres like the Bataclan are totally going to invest millions in these devices and the necessary physical reconstruction), but there are plenty of other buildings where large numbers of people congregate, including busy streets that will be impossible to protect like this.

Also, having a mechanism to seal your targets inside during an attack is totally never going to be abused by the bad guys (and if you evacuate on a trigger, you just need a few guys with AKs outside the exits).

That said, I'm sure there are good applications for an effective non-intrusive explosives detector (eg in making airport security smoother) -- these attacks just ain't it.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#12

Post by sametmax »

peterclary wrote: post #6

"First, a microscopic amount of Semtex 1A high explosive is dabbed onto a T-shirt. To the naked eye, it is almost invisible - but from a large, red, metal box mounted on a portable steel trolley an ultra-violet laser beam flickers on to the white cotton surface of the garment. Immediately, a warning flashes up on the display monitor." So you would be able to cause disruption AND get innocents locked up by simply cove…

And by spraying markers on a lot of people you can either:

    - cost a lot of money by forcing events to be cancelled;
    - enforce more invasive/costly security measures;
    - diminush the value of the security mesure and pass a bomb in.
But this is what's strange with terrorists : they strike ma as utterly incompetents. There is so many easy ways to fuck things up, and they always do the ineficient and hard things. My father worked as a head of security for a national company, we used to discuss of all the way you can really hurt companies, people and society. It's not even that hard and costly. Are they lacking of imagination, or not really trying ?

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#13

Post by mseebach »

peterclary wrote: post #6

"First, a microscopic amount of Semtex 1A high explosive is dabbed onto a T-shirt. To the naked eye, it is almost invisible - but from a large, red, metal box mounted on a portable steel trolley an ultra-violet laser beam flickers on to the white cotton surface of the garment. Immediately, a warning flashes up on the display monitor." So you would be able to cause disruption AND get innocents locked up by simply cove…

Do you want to see what happens if you slip a big knife into someones carry-on? It's harder than "covertly dabbing" someone, but not impossible. On the other hand, big knifes are substantially easier to get your hands on without drawing attention to yourself than even microscopic amounts of Semtex. Yet, it doesn't happen, so I think we're safe here.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#14

Post by yoo1I »

yoo1I wrote: post #10

No. Now to read the article.

> "If it had been on the doors there, it would have stopped people getting in."

Problem? People blowing themselves up on airplanes. Solution: Check them for bombs before they board the airplane.

Next Problem? People blowing themselves up in the lines before the bomb check in the airport. Solution: Check people outside the airport.

Next Problem? People blowing themselves up in the lines outside the airport Solution: Check people for bombs before they board the trains for the airport.

Next Problem? ...

s/[airplanes|airports|trains]//g

Apparent Actual Problem? Crowds of people are hard to protect without making the crowds live's very uncomfortable.

Actual problem? People want to blow themselves up in crows of people.

Solution: Spend more effort making the world a place in which people do not like blowing themselves up anymore and/or in which they are too lazy to be motivated to do it.

Plan?

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#15

Post by monk_e_boy »

Totoradio wrote: post #2

I don't know if this device works, but this is just wrong: >"I'm sorry to say, but the Brussels attack, this would have instantly sorted out the terrorists before they came into the terminal, and similarly the concert in Paris," he says. "If it had been on the doors there, it would have stopped people getting in." The terrorists who attacked the Bataclan didn't arrive as simple concert goers, they had AK-47s and shot…

This is a device to make money.

All they need is for it to be installed in ONE airport and then they can say "Hey, look. They've got it installed because they are anti-terror. Look at you. You don't have one. You know what that looks like to all of us? Yeah, you are pro-terror. To be anti-terror you need this device."

Any politician who gets one of these installed using government anti-terror funds! Sweeeet! They can strut around telling everyone how much money they are spending to foil terrorists and ACTUALLY HAVE A BOX THEY CAN POINT AT.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#17

Post by wildmusings »

sametmax wrote: post #3

I find crazy the amount of resources we deploy to fight something: - that causes little deaths compared to most diseases or social issues. - cost little compared to most economical or educational issues. - has little long term consequences on the country compared to internal and external policies, laws, politics and visions; - is a direct consequence of social, economical and educational issues and a by product of po…

>that causes little deaths compared to most diseases or social issues. cost little compared to most economical or educational issues. has little long terme consequences on the country compared to internal and external policies, laws, politics and visions

9/11 was an extra 20% on top of US murders in 2001. The Paris attacks also clock in at an extra 20% of the murder rate in France. Larger versions of sophisticated ambushes like the ones in Paris or Mumbai could very conceivably run up death tolls in the thousands. These people would kill millions of us if they could, so why exactly should we let down our guard?

Not to mention that murder is not the totality of terrorism's effects. When people critical of Islam are repeatedly targeted by terrorists, we all lose our freedom to speak our minds. We live in societies almost completely free of political violence, which has allowed an amazing flourishing of industry, technology, and culture. Terrorism is a huge threat to that. Europe in particular has a serious problem on their hands, given how many European-born Muslims are alienated from and hostile to Western society.

>is a direct consequence of social, economical and educational issues and a by product of policies, laws, politics and visions.

Huh? Isn't this true for any societal issue?

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#18

Post by junto »

mseebach wrote: post #11
Totoradio wrote: post #2

I don't know if this device works, but this is just wrong: >"I'm sorry to say, but the Brussels attack, this would have instantly sorted out the terrorists before they came into the terminal, and similarly the concert in Paris," he says. "If it had been on the doors there, it would have stopped people getting in." The terrorists who attacked the Bataclan didn't arrive as simple concert goers, they had AK-47s and shot…

An effective deployment of the device would probably involve a sort of sluice gate setup, that will detect traffic through an outer perimeter and, when triggered, seals an inner perimeter. The distance between the two is designed to be greater than that which can be covered on foot in the time the device takes to make a detection. That, of course, ignores a central lesson of the Brussels attacks: They happened before…

This is exactly the key point. You either have a queue of people inside the airport, or outside waiting to go through security. The target has just been moved and is equally as accessible (perhaps more so) as before.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#19

Post by nxzero »

sametmax wrote: post #8
ross-life wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because (it feels) like it's not possible to properly debate the subject in public. As a little/normal person the answer is always the same: "But but what if it was your mother/girlfriend/daughter that died in the attack?!". These are the same people that probably have been into contact with someone who has directly dealt with the consequences of police corruption, yet won't ever support "making the police's job hard…

Yes but why do we fail to convince ? What can we do to help people not panicking ?

You can't, let it go.

Re: Could British invention foil terror bombs?

#20

Post by rayiner »

sametmax wrote: post #3

I find crazy the amount of resources we deploy to fight something: - that causes little deaths compared to most diseases or social issues. - cost little compared to most economical or educational issues. - has little long term consequences on the country compared to internal and external policies, laws, politics and visions; - is a direct consequence of social, economical and educational issues and a by product of po…

People don't view the impact of death merely in terms of body count. If we did, we wouldn't care about serial killers or child abductions or people shot by police. We devote major resources to fighting terrorism not because of the body count, but because we feel it deeply unjust to allow terrorists to kill innocent people to make a political point, especially when that political point is an attack on fundamental precepts of our society. Terrorism isn't just an attack on people; it's intended to be an attack on our institutions and our society.
Post reply on HN