There's a surplus of commentary on the web (and everywhere else) at the moment about the appalling September 11th terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC. In one sense, I'd rather talk about something else, but in another sense I don't want to suggest that there is anything more important to talk about right now. There are many aspects to this issue, all of which warrant some kind of discussion: I'm going to stick with just one — an aspect has the benefit of being minimally judgemental on any party.

Up until now, pilots and passengers have always been more or less cooperative with hijackers, the rationale being that it was in the best interests of the safety of the largest number of people. Hijackers have typically taken the passengers and crew of the plane hostage as a bargaining chip in getting their demands met. In this latest incident, however, we have hijackers taking control of the plane fully intending to kill themselves and everyone on board, and causing as much collateral damage as possible in the process. Indeed, the lives lost on the aeroplanes may be only a small fraction of the total number of lives lost.

This changes the rules of the game. From now on, complicity with the demands of a hijacker is no guarantee that any lives will be saved, and it may mean that the tragedy is multiplied a hundredfold. No domestic US flight can afford to allow a hijacker control of the plane anymore, lest the World Trade Center tragedy repeat itself. If a hijacker demands control of the plane, the safest thing a pilot can now do is ditch fuel and make an emergency landing ASAP, with the hope that everyone makes it back to ground in one piece. Hijacking should be treated as an attempted mass murder with the plane itself as the weapon — the only responsible thing to do is disarm the weapon before the would-be murderer can take control.

Under these new rules, anyone hijacking a plane is implicitly declaring war on every nation represented on the plane, plus the country that owns the airspace. When hijackers announce themselves, every non-terrorist on the plane is more or less immediately obliged to take whatever arms they have and fight the enemy, based on the perfectly credible assumption that this could be another September 11, 2001. The war has arrived in your aircraft, and unless you do something about it, you and many people on the ground below may well be toast before the day is over. Hijacking can no longer be considered a crime: it's an act of war.

I'm not suggesting that weapons should be allowed on aircraft so that the populace can defend themselves — that's insanely dangerous; nor am I suggesting that security measures shouldn't be raised to make hijacking more difficult. What I am saying is that one way or the other, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference what "security" measures are or are not imposed — and it's utter folly to think that additional security will solve the problem. Instead, people are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that there is no safe place and adjust accordingly.

The average American has always relied on the military power of his nation to ensure his safety. But when the war turns up unannounced on a plane in flight, the best the military is going to be able to offer is to shoot it down gently. Under those circumstances, it's up to the citizens themselves to rise up and bear the risk of protecting their nation. But isn't this exactly what the American Spirit is supposed to be about? The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? Horrible though it is, this atrocity could well be a reality check for the American Spirit — a spirit that can only exist in the nation if it exists in its populace; not its military or its president alone.

So, if the war arrives on your doorstep, what will you do?