Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Government Idle

TSA Reminds You Not To Travel With Hand Grenades 378

Posted by samzenpus
from the thanks-for-the-tip dept.
coondoggie writes "Some of the travel recommendations posted on the Transportation Security Administration's blog seem stupefying obvious. This week's, entitled: 'Leave Your Grenades at Home' seemed like a no brainer, but alas. The TSA wrote about grenades in particular: Year to date, the agency's officers have discovered: 43 grenades in carry-on baggage and 40 grenades in checked baggage."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Reminds You Not To Travel With Hand Grenades

Comments Filter:
  • by MoFoQ (584566) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @07:53PM (#44824989)

    wait...even the Holy ones?

    What about the foam ones? or the ones that are really balloons (but not filled up with anything yet)?

  • by OrangeTide (124937) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @07:53PM (#44824991) Homepage Journal

    a majority of the confiscated grenades are fake, replicas or otherwise inert.

    • by cold fjord (826450) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @08:07PM (#44825085)

      A majority, but not all.

      Of course, once in the air, circumstances may arise where the only way to tell is to see if it will go off. Not many people want to do that.

      Hijacking using bombs, or a threat of a bomb (what's a fake?), was a popular pastime in the 1960s-70s.

      • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc&carpanet,net> on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @08:45PM (#44825389) Homepage

        And yet, it still then didn't add up to a statistically significant enough threat to bother with additional security.

        Simple.... all those grenades....0 of them in the hands of terrorists. That should tell you this is a stupid issue.

        • by cold fjord (826450) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @08:53PM (#44825443)

          Simple.... all those grenades....0 of them in the hands of terrorists. That should tell you this is a stupid issue.

          Because no terrorist would want to bring a grenade on a plane?

          If the existing security is finding the grenades they don't need additional security.

          • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc&carpanet,net> on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @09:08PM (#44825525) Homepage

            Because terrorists are so rare that they are not even worth worrying about, and never were.

          • They found 83 grenades ... do you know how many grenades they didn't find? When tested, they miss over half of handguns.

            PS: you an stick a grenade up your asshole.

          • If I were a terrorist, I would pop the pin in the terminal and toss it toward the crowd. Hundreds dead and wounded. A belt with several and a string tied to the pins would work wonders too. Hell, a belt tied to the pins, pull it out from under the jacket and give a good hard swing and grenades go everywhere!

            Why would a terrorist want to bring a grenade on a plane?

        • by omnichad (1198475) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @10:16PM (#44825991) Homepage

          Furthermore, if I'm reading the numbers right, 1 live grenade out of 84 found - and that one was an accident by a travelling solider. The rest were completely inert and only look dangerous.

      • by wbr1 (2538558) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @09:12PM (#44825547)
        This is what armored cockpit doors are for. You can detonate a bomb. You cannot take the plane over and fly it into populated areas or buildings. That is 99% of the airplane security we need, because no matter what, if someone wants to get explosives on a plane, they will.
        • by Deadstick (535032)

          This is what armored cockpit doors are for. You can detonate a bomb. You cannot take the plane over

          You can open a pretty sturdy door with the right explosive...

        • by LordNimon (85072) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @10:34PM (#44826107)
          That is 99% of the airplane security we need, because no matter what, if someone wants to get explosives on a plane, they will.

          Obviously, that is not true. There are thousands of people worldwide who want to get on an explosive on a plane, but have failed. Even the shoe bomber got nowhere.
          • He did however get the explosives onto the plane. As did the underwear bomber. They ran into the 2nd most important security change post 9/11, after sturdy locked doors, which is passenger and air crew attitudes toward, and reaction to, hijackers. Pre 9/11 the mantra was OK don't make any trouble for the hijackers. Post 9/11 the reaction of passengers and crew has been to vigorously restrain such people. The presumption with any security measure shoudl be that it will eventually fail. Somebody will find a

          • by 45mm (970995)

            There are thousands of people worldwide who want to get on an explosive on a plane, but have failed. Even the shoe bomber got nowhere.

            He WAS on the plane, but his explosives failed to detonate. Same thing happened to the underwear bomber - failed to detonate, just burned the hell out of his private areas.

            Both were subdued by passengers, which I'll argue is much more likely to happen now that we know the attackers' intent is to take over the plane and fly them into buildings. It used to be that the hijackers just wanted something so they'd hold everyone hostage. That made passengers compliant to demands - their lives weren't in imminent

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The 9/11 tragedy became possible for two reasons: easy access to cockpit and expectation that the hijackers will be using hostages for negotiations (as it was before 9/11). However, 9/11 showed to everyone that the 21st century hijackers might not be interested in negotiations. This immediately changed the rules of the game for everyone on board the plane. Now it became safer to fight the hijackers than try to follow orders hoping for a release after negotiations. This is the biggest reason why underwear or

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      My wife uses a perfume called Flowerbomb. It comes in a glass container shaped like a grenade. I could imagine this causing an issue at airport scanners.

      • Classy lady.
      • by icebike (68054)

        Glass. You can see through it. Scanner Xrays pass right through it.
        Just not a problem.

      • Is that a clever way of telling us that your wife is "da bomb"?

      • You're right -- liquids over 100ml are still not permitted through the checkpoint.
        • by BlueStrat (756137) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @10:44PM (#44826153)

          You're right -- liquids over 100ml are still not permitted through the checkpoint.

          Can't you just see the hilarity that would ensue if a passenger (or nearly all passengers for extra "Keystone"-factor) urinated into a >100ml container (besides the onboard holding tank) while in-flight, let it be known to the attendants/crew, and video recorded what happens?

          So sick of the security theater. Even a good number of the people who, up till a couple of years ago, have been supportive of the TSA silliness are waking up and becoming ever-more disillusioned, angry, and disgusted. Hopefully enough will finally awake to change things sooner rather than later.

          I say that, instead of putting all those TSA employees out of work, we simply re-task them to a more useful and productive role in society.

          Picking up litter along all public roads, streets, and highways. Hell, have 'em clean alongside passenger railway lines, too. Take away their security toys and give them trash bags, buckets, rakes, & brooms. They wouldn't even need to change the agency initials.

          "Trash and Sanitation Authority"

          Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

          I bet those fleets of nifty huge TSA SUVs and armored vehicles can move a lot of litter!

          I'd even thank them for their hard work in that case, unlike now. At least it would be a respectable and useful job that actually benefits everyone and the environment at the same time it puts low-skilled people in stable jobs. It could also be a way to immensely reduce inmate recidivism rates by transitioning paroled prison inmates through such a job to a non-criminal, employed, and productive life with hope & opportunity.

          Strat

    • a majority of the confiscated grenades are fake, replicas or otherwise inert.

      Except the ones that are not fakes...

      Officers at Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) discovered a live 40mm high explosive grenade in a carry-on bag in 2012.

    • by Dan667 (564390)
      so still no actual security from the tsa. Just security theater for people that are afraid anytime they leave their home and when they are home.
  • Fuck Network World (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @07:55PM (#44825001)
    Link to the fucking TSA blog, not the idiotic morons at Network World: http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/09/tsa-travel-tips-tuesday-leave-your.html [tsa.gov] . Please do not click NW links, and if you must, be sure to have your ad blocker on.
  • Complete Failure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @07:57PM (#44825015)

    The TSA:

    1) Allows ex convicts to grope your children.
    2) Takes and stores full 3d scanned naked images of you using tech for which the cancer-risk has not been adequately assessed.
    3) Steals valuables from your luggage.
    4) Costs taxpayers a fortune.

    and in return:

    5) Has foiled exactly zero terrorist plots.
    6) Fails to make you safer in any way.

    Just sayin'.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @08:02PM (#44825043)

      The TSA sounds a lot like my exwife!

      Badumtish!

    • by mark-t (151149) <markt@@@lynx...bc...ca> on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @08:10PM (#44825105) Journal

      Actually, they might have foiled a terrorist plot without our ever finding out about it, because if or when a system is working as intended, the tendency is only natural to not notice what it is doing. The lack of any evidence to show that they have foiled any terrorist effort, therefore, is logically insufficient basis to presume that they have not actually possibly done so. You may be right, but since stopping such things is what they are supposed to do, there's no way to be certain, if only by their very presence, that they are not having some impact. (Indeed, technically only definitive ineffectiveness can be shown if or when a terrorist attempt that in hindsight should have been detected by the systems in place occurs).

      You'll get no argument from me on your other points, however.

      • Precisely - it's called deterrence, and it's very hard to determine it's effectiveness.

        • Re: Complete Failure (Score:4, Interesting)

          by supersat (639745) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @09:00PM (#44825487)
          Deterrence is easy to measure if you're wiretapping everyone.
        • by chrismcb (983081)
          Is it really hard?
          Prior to 9/11 there random searches and metal detectors with xrays. That didn't stop people. Why should a little more stop anyone? There are LOTS of ways to get into an airport. Supposedly the guys that planned 9/11 spent a long time planning it. They are going to let a little deterrence stop them?
          TSA isn't about deterring anyone. It is about controlling the population and keeping them in fear.
      • by cavreader (1903280) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @08:24PM (#44825229)

        Hijackings were pretty rare in the US at the time of 9/11 and the security at the time did make it hard to smuggle in a gun or bomb. Before 9/11 I never heard of case where a gun was successfully smuggled onto a plane in the US. The hijackers on the planes on 9/11 bluffed everyone with threats of a bomb and box cutters for weapons. If this same scenario happened today the first people who stood up and announced they have a bomb and brandish a little knife would most likely get the ever living shit kicked out of them by the passengers. It was passengers who subdued the guy with underwear bomb. The guy who tried to light his shoes on fire to set off an explosion was also subdued by the passengers. Sure some passengers could get injured or even killed in the fight but that's still a whole lot better than killing everyone by crashing the plane.

        • by Scutter (18425)

          9/11 changed the stakes dramatically. Prior to 9/11, hijackings almost universally meant "fly this plane to Havana and we'll let you all go". As soon as the hijackers upped the ante to "we're gonna plow this thing into the nearest building, killing all of you", they forever ensured that no box cutter would stop the passengers from beating them into a paste.

          • by Jason Levine (196982) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @09:30PM (#44825675)

            Besides passengers fighting back instead of sitting back and letting a hijacking happen, the only worthwhile security that happened after 9/11 was the locked, reinforced cabin doors. That ensures that the hijackers can't get into the cabin before the passengers take them out. Other than that, pre-9/11 screening (checking for guns, knives, etc) would have been enough. Yes, it let the hijackers through, but the "increased TSA security" has also let through people with weapons.

        • by DaHat (247651) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @09:17PM (#44825587) Homepage

          It was passengers who subdued the guy with underwear bomb.

          Correct... but only AFTER the detonator failed to ignite the explosive material... but instead ignited his pants and resulted in no boom.

          The guy who tried to light his shoes on fire to set off an explosion was also subdued by the passengers.

          Correct... but only AFTER he was unsuccessful at lighting the fuse.

          In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.

          • Re:Complete Failure (Score:4, Informative)

            by chrismcb (983081) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @10:37PM (#44826117) Homepage

            In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.

            Of course this happened AFTER he got through TSA screening.

            • Re:Complete Failure (Score:5, Informative)

              by drkim (1559875) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @11:09PM (#44826321)

              In both cases it was not the passengers subduing the attackers which prevented the deaths of those onboard... but instead luck that neither device went off.

              Of course this happened AFTER he got through TSA screening.

              Not technically correct in either case:
              The "Underware bomber" (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) was coming from Amsterdam.

              The "Shoe Bomber" (Richard Colvin Reid) was inbound from Paris.

              So neither one had been screened by US TSA.

        • That's a good point, the airport security before 9/11 was already good enough to stop an attack. There was no need to increase it significantly.
      • by dido (9125) <dido@@@imperium...ph> on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @08:36PM (#44825333)

        Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
        Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
        Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
        Homer: I see.
        Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
        Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

      • by Dan667 (564390)
        I am saying you have foiled every attempted ufo invasion since 9/11. Keep up the good job.
      • by chrismcb (983081)

        You may be right, but since stopping such things is what they are supposed to do, there's no way to be certain, if only by their very presence, that they are not having some impact

        They are having an impact all right. They cost us money and time. Anecdotal evidence suggests some tourists aren't coming to American because of them. And evidence suggests driving has gone up, and because driving is statistically less safe than flying, more people have died has a result.
        So we can't tell if TSA has deterred anyone (would it really? What we did previously didn't stop anyone, why should the TSA) but evidence has suggested they failed to stop some terrorists, like the underwear guy and the s

  • TSA finds average of 4 guns each day at airports, with number continuing to rise since 2007 [nydailynews.com]

    If it is all just "security theater," the "patrons" seem a bit over-armed.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Greyfox (87712)
      Like that scene from Airplane, they should just give you a gun if you don't have one when you check in at the gate. That'd make the whole process a lot easier...
    • by amiga3D (567632)

      I'm shocked it's that low. 4 guns a day nationwide is pretty small. You've got to figure out of the millions pouring through airports daily at least a tiny percentage are bat shit crazy. Maybe not even such a tiny percentage. I remember reading about one guy who freaked out on a flight and his fellow passengers got so frightened that they killed him. This was before 911.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118734&page=1 [go.com]

    • by mjwx (966435)

      TSA finds average of 4 guns each day at airports, with number continuing to rise since 2007 [nydailynews.com]

      If it is all just "security theater," the "patrons" seem a bit over-armed.

      As much as I agree with you, the TSA is overkill.

      Airport security should be able to detect guns without 3D scanners and "enhanced pat downs". Same with terrorist plots, airport security is the absolute last line of defence, we shouldn't arm it or treat it as the first line.

    • by _Ludwig (86077)

      Guns which would almost certainly have been found using the pre-9/11 security procedures.

    • Since an average day of commerical fight in the US sees about 1.5 million passengers, that means about 0.0000026% of them are carrying firearms. Seems a lot closer to "random accident" than "over-armed". I suspect there isn't another demographic on the planet that is so lightly armed.
  • by Hartree (191324) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @08:13PM (#44825141)

    The US Postal Service would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to get your letter bombs in the mail early this year.

    Thank You,

  • Reminder... No... Grenades. Thank you TSA.
  • What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public -Tommy Boy

    No one in this world, so far as I know &mdash; and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me &mdash; has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. H.L Mencken

    improperly attributed to him as:

    No one ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American Public

    -I'm just sayin'
  • by shadowofwind (1209890) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @09:24PM (#44825639)

    I carried on a mock EFP on a flight to L.A. The TSA didn't even open the bag. I was kind of appalled, because there was a lot of sharp steel in it even though there was no explosive. But then on my return trip they took my tiny little drill bits, because drill bits are forbidden.

    Another time I tried to carry on a big knife by accident, but they found it. I would guess most of the confiscated guns are like that. Sam Kinison even had a routine about this.

    I think its all bullshit, especially the millimeter wave stuff, its just a big money making scheme for L3 and their corrupt government patrons. If someone wanted to kill a bunch of people at an airport, the best place would be the queue at the security check. If I had my way we would fly unmolested and accept the risk. Locking the cockpit doors solves most of the problem, and most of the rest of it solved by having a population with some sense of honor, willing to fight back instead of just cowering and waiting to die. My wishful thinking isn't going to change the culture though.

  • by Grand Facade (35180) on Wednesday September 11, 2013 @09:39PM (#44825743)

    How many grenades they missed?

  • ""The majority of these grenades were inert, replica, or novelty items"

    Good job with security theater TSA.
  • 'Leave Your Grenades at Home'

    It's all so darkly twisted and Kafkaesque. As a non American looking in I can't imagine that in a 100 years some history student reading his text book will ever know how twistedly, wickedly funny and scary and sad it all is.

  • by jools33 (252092) on Thursday September 12, 2013 @01:18AM (#44826999)

    Back in the 70s my father traveled from Aberdeen to London. In his baggage he had several kilos of explosives for an outdoor son et lumiere production he was the technical theater manager for. He was stopped by the security guard before boarding the plane. The guard asked "Sir what do you have in these bags" my father replied "explosives", the guard then replied "very funny sir" and waved him onto the plane. Times have changed... but it might surprise you what people think they can carry onto a plane.

Life. Don't talk to me about life. - Marvin the Paranoid Anroid

Working...