... I dislike the idea of anyone particularly children being seen by strangers especially since these machines wouldn't have stopped the latest bomber. ...
All of the news reports that I have seen have stated that these machines would have probably stopped that plot cold.
A better way is to use dogs IMO.
Who said that we can't still use dogs?
Airline A has mandatory full body scans, bomb sniffing dogs, trained security personnel, x ray machines , and limits on liquids ect.
Airline B pretty has a minimal security check, but a 30% savings on your ticket cost.
With whom do you fly?
I bet the terrorists would use both. Terrorist B would go through security with the bomb and then transfer it to terrorist A once they are both through security.
I can see the pro's and con's of body scanners.
To scan everyone it would cost a lost of time and money. Would it really be cost effective to scan my elderly parents or the average family with 2 or 3 children off to Disney or would it make more sense to concentrate on the person whose profile fitted with that of the recent terrorists or potential terrorists (all very similar). Would it be better to divert scarce resources into preventing people on a suspect list from ever getting on an aircraft without thorough inspection which is what happened in this case.
What then about the terrorists that aren't on our suspect lists?
It seems that we are always very reactive in response to these real or perceived attacks - everyone taking shoes off after the 'shoe bomber' - no liquids after the potential liquid bomber - and the hasty implementation of body scanners and the 'sit in your seat for an hour before landing, with no blanket and no sky map' after the latest incident. These measures will not make flying any safer.
Hasty implementation of body scanners? Body scanners have been in use for years. Perhaps the scheduled installation in some airports has been stepped up, but that's certainly not a bad thing.
Another point - as far as I understand Muslim women would not submit (for obvious reasons) to this body scanner so perhaps the new threat would be terrorists employing women accomplices to carry out their plans.
Or devout muslim women not flying. People of other religions and beliefs don't fly, after all.
What if my religion require modesty, would I still have to go through or would that be discrimination?
You could merely decide not to fly. As stated just above, not all people of all religions and belief systems fly.
Your comparison is also apples to oranges. Even if the boys show just as much people learn to divert their eyes. The TSA agents are specifically looking at people's genitals now thanks to Mr. Abdulmutallab .
The analogy was apples to oranges, but not how you mean. The swimmers are showing their goods in public, while the scans are done in private.
No one is answering the question raised about these scanners doing nothing to catch terrorists such as the last guy.
That's because your statement was not correct. The scanners would probably have stopped 'the last guy'.
Also body cavities could still hide things.
Here's something that most people in this thread are ignoring:
If security thought that you might have something concealed in your bum, they could take a look. They don't need a fancy machine to do so, either.
If they believed that a strip search was warranted, they could do one.
Flying is not a right. If you don't want to be subject to a security search, do not fly.
Here's an idea.
How about letting Conceal Carry permit holders carry onboard the airplane?
Have the TSA hand out frangible ammo at the security checkpoint.
Nothing like a bullet-riddled face of a jihadi to get the other ones reconsidering.
Interesting thought. What do you do about the terrorist who happens to have a CCW? Do you really want him to carry his weapon aboard the aircraft?
Too bad you've already been visited by the Tag Fairy, PrincessK'sMom - this response is a classic!
Holy Crap!
