'Cause Republicans are not a joke.
Now that's funny
Good luck with that (I'm serious). That might be the most refreshing comment I've heard out of a demo in years.ost know that I'm a democrat but it is time we JFK democrats took the party back from the left wing radicals. While I'm for civil liberties I'm also for protecting the people. But let's hear some better options as well.
Agreed.
I did like how, in response to terrorism , "Quicker medical responses"
Oh yeah, an ambulance digging through debris 20 minutes sooner will make Habib think "oh my, they got here quickly, Im gonna stop now."
Whatever.
If France and Russia would get off their ass and help us in IRAN, and the government would stop worrying about how were treating assholes that want to blow us up in Gitmo, then wed be better off.
We're Americans T Park...we don't need help from anybody...no god damn Frogs or Commies!!!
Love Live America!!
So no one is willing to wonder why NYC is not implementing an obviosly more effective technique?
Bomb sniffing dogs would be preferable, but right now they are a rare breed...
According to this Washington Post article, there are only 100 trained bomb-sniffing dogs nationwide. New York City's subway system has between 400 and 500 stations.
I would hope steps are being taken to train more dogs, because they are widely considered one of the best options for detecting bombs. But it wouldn't seem to be an option at this time.
Simple. The cost.
But then again just put "Benjie" on a leash and he would be a deterrent.
What is the cost of a terrorist attack and would hte cost of bomb sniffing dogs be more?
But you are right, putting Benji in a station would probably deter just as many terrorists as random searches that involve consent.
Well, first we have to take a few things into consideration.
1. How many bomb sniffing dogs are in the NYC area and are at their disposal?
I don't know this yet, I'm going to try to find out in a few seconds for google is my friend.
2. How many subway stations are subject to random searches at any given point in time?
I don't know this either, but I know it is going to be a very small percentage, so the entire number of subway stations is irrelevent.
3. When does using dogs become more of a deterent than random searches?
If they can only field one dog at a time, will that one dog be more effective than running these consent needed searches at X number of stations?
Some more pieces of info:
Dallas reacted to London with bomb sniffing dogs:
http://dallas.bizjournals.com/dallas...26.html?page=2
Dallas Area Rapid Transit on Thursday added bomb-sniffing canine units as a safety precaution in light of this morning's terrorist attacks on public transportation in London, said Claudia Garibay, spokeswoman for the public transportation agency that serves 13 Dallas-Fort Worth cities, including Dallas.
As a user of the system, did you notice the dogs Spurminator?
Interestingly enough, they are training these dogs here in San Antonio at Lackland.
Under the (reasonable) assumption that every team has a dog, that is already 350 dogs which is much more than the 100 the Post article mentioned.At a cost of $35,000 to breed a dog, partner it with a law enforcement officer, train the team and deploy the pair in the field, it hasn't been a cheap proposition. There are now more than 350 teams in the nation's 65 largest airports, which handle 90 percent of U.S. air travelers, Viator said. By the end of the year, there should be teams at 82 U.S. airports, Viator said. The program's funding for fiscal 2005 is $17 million. And that's still just talking about airport security.
Also, 17 million in funding for the best method of bomb detection we have is absolutely . Why aren't they funding this??!??!?!?!
Interesting. I haven't noticed.As a user of the system, did you notice the dogs Spurminator?
Of course, the officer that ticketed me is the only DART officer I've seen on the rail since the London bombings.
Bomb-sniffing dogs are not machines. They need rest, and have to "find" something on a regular basis (they stage fake bombs) so that they don't get discouraged.
It would take an unprecedented amount of dogs, numbers that we are not prepared to supply & train currently. There probably is someone who is quite knowledgeable in this area who posts here, all branches of the millitary's dog training occurs in SA at either Lackland or Randolph I believe, and there are a lot of high-end local breeders of millitary dogs.
Well, I submit this and I would love for someone to proove me wrong o it.
One bomb sniffing dog would be far more effective than the consentable random searches being used on the NYC subway at this time.
You're absolutely right. One dog at each station would probably do the trick.
How many subway stations in NYC? How many dogs would it take to have (1) dog on duty for all hours of operation?
I think I need to go ahead and get me a GSD quickly before they're all gone!
I said ONE dog. Not one at each station. ONE dog.
Obviously one at each station would be even better, but I'm guessing that not many terrorists are going to consent to a search. Thats just my stupid line of logic however.
Maybe this line of law enforcement will catch on and in the future they'll ask us if we want speeding tickets, etc etc.
Even a dog wouldn't have sniffed out the boxcutters the 9/11 terrorists used.
Nor would have consentual random searches stopped them.
Not necessarily. Have you even seen the boxes full of scissors, nail clippers, letter openers and other stuff that is confiscated during "random" searches?
My mother had her small pair of nail scissors confiscated.
You do realize that the searches being discussed in this thread are consentual? That means you can just walk away and not have to undergo them.
You can walk away, walk a block to where there are no ongoing searches, and enter the subway. Or you can walk away, come back the next day when there are no searches.
So. Damn. Effective.
Yeah, but if there's only one dog, you can walk to another station where you KNOW there won't be a dog. With random searches, there's always a chance you could be searched at any station, however minimal.
The problem is in making these searches consentual. I would guess, however, that they keep an eye on anyone who refuses a search. Unofficially, of course.
Which then makes the ultimately very illegal. Thats why they are keeping them consentual, but even that is going to have its problems.
A dog has much better chance of identifying a bomber that comes close. I'll admit the odds aren't astromnomical, but they are much better than consentual searches. Also, although I haven't been able to find anything official, I know NYC has more than one dog and probably has more than any other city in the country with the possible exception of DC.
I conceded earlier in this thread that random searches make catching a terrorist more likely, but I rescind that concession because there is no way in a terrorists will ever submit to a search. And the searches don't do any good when the bomb is hidden on the body of a bomber.
Huh? That makes no sense. Many are busted for drugs because they have the drugs hidden on their bodies. So I would say that if a bomber has the bomb hidden on their body there is a good chance it will be found.
Now if he has it shoved up his ass then that is a different story.
And if a terrorist is not going to submit to a search then he ain't getting on the plane, thus a terrorist has been STOPPED!!!!!!!
Hey dude, how many planes fly in subway tunnels?
Those nail clippers and stuff are confiscated because of 9/11. Even if a security guard at an airport saw the boxcutters the terrorists were taking with them on that morning, they proly wouldn't have stopped them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote