I saw another post where someone mentioned locked and sealed doors to the cockpit, and it got me thinking...
How could you effectively prevent a hijacking?
Say the doors to the cockpit were sealed off. Well.. then... a hijacker could merely communicate to the pilots that he would kill X number of people if the plane didn't divert to such and such a location.
So, from my above example, sealing off the cockpit doors would be ineffective, as the pilots are usually *already* made aware of a threat to kill passengers if demands aren't met. It would follow then that in order for the sealed cockpit to be effective for this type of hijacking, you must also disable communications going *into* the cockpit. Potential hijackers would know that this plane is basically remote controlled - and that nothing they did or said would be acknowledged by the pilots and the plane would fly its route as normal. Additionally, the taking of the controls would be impossible.
Two immediate drawbacks I can see are medical emergencies (heart attacks etc.) that would require a premature landing... Or the recent (at least recently newsworthy) incidents of air rage that necessitate the same kind of diversion. In those cases a sealed off cockpit would be... uhm... bad.
But the question is... in light of today's (and past) events, does the odd medical emergency or the dealing with air rage take priority over rendering the hijacking of a commercial plane impossible? Maybe... maybe not... what do you think? Perhaps along with sealed doors and sealed communications, both a medic and a bouncer employed by the airline should be on every flight, much the same as stewards.
Anyway... just something I've been tossing around in my head today.
Another thing...
What is with this lack of will by the US to *finish* off its enemy? Saddam is one classic example (Korea another albeit complicated example), and for all anyone knows, today coulda been orchestrated by Saddam himself. The simple (and I believe actual) reason is US international law. The US doesn't "assassinate".... and the foundation, the principles of the US justice system is innocence until proven guilty by a court of law.
Why this got me thinking is that listening to today's news, it became evident that there exists 3-4 groups that may have carried out this attack. We know this literally by the threats these groups make against the US weekly. So why does the United States need victims before they act? Why cannot a mere threat be dealt with in the same manner as joking that you have a bomb in yer suitcase (30 days in jail)? The answer probably lies in international law.
Now I mentioned Iraq and Korea, but bin Laden is the same thing... The US tried to get at him, blowing his training camp to toejam... but he wasn't there. He slipped deeper into Afghanistan. Then the story seemed to end. Of course the US tried to get Afghanistan to extradite him, but it has turned into some drawn out diplomatic cycle, with the Afghanistans unwilling to give him up (pffft this despite the US helping them in fending off the Russians)...
I think it may be high time that the US adopted a similar policy against international threats as it does with its own citizens. You threaten the life of your neighbor, you get arrested. You threaten the lives of Americans, you get the snot beat out of ya *before* your threat can be carried out... regardless of borders.
Based on what happened today and what will likely become an ongoing situation, I would not blame the States one bit for being slightly more proactive outside of its own borders when it comes to amazinhunks like terrorists. The harboring countries need do only one thing to avoid an incursion into their country... stop supporting them. Otherwise, shreck em.... they're just as guilty. Kill bin Laden and kill anyone else who makes any kind of threat to the US, borders be damned... zero tolerance.
