>From: Ken Clements <Ken@Innovation-On-Demand.com>
>>"S.J. Van Sickle" wrote:
>>If nothing else, the passengers probably reacted with the
>>assumption that, like all previous hijackings, they were to be
>>held for some sort of ransom. If they knew that they were going
>>to die anyway, they would fight. This is apparently what
>>happened on the flight that crashed in Pennslyvania. It is going
>>to be a hell of a lot harder to hijack any plane again in the
>As indicated by S.J. above, I do not think we need to look for new
>solutions. It is the idea that hijacking equals death of the
>passengers, and perhaps thousands of others on the ground, that
>will stop this. When people understand this, a hijacking
>situation reverts to the deepest primal human response. No matter
>what weapons they have, it would be very difficult for a few to
>stand against a mob ofover a hundred humans who have reverted to
Indeed now that the cat is out of the bag this is unlikely to work
in the future, and I'm sure additional safeguards will be added.
(maybe a bulkhead between pilots and passengers).
Another possibility is some sort of international database for air
travelers, maybe everyone using a passport everywhere with an
instacheck system like we use for guns.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
Disclosure notice: currently "plonked"
"Joe Dees" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Party of Citizens"<email@example.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:29 MDT