The news came the day after a senior Whitehall source said there was a "high probability" that international terrorists would sooner or later launch an attack on the UK.

Airlines have previously been cautious of such a move, saying that having guns on planes could pose more of a risk than the initial threat.

Officials believe the most likely form of an international terrorism attack is against the transport system such as planes or some form of unsophisticated chemical warfare, or using high-explosives in a conventional bomb.

Do you think armed air marshals are a good idea? Will you feel safer?

This Talking Point has now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

Guns have no place on board an aircraft Neil Bilsborough, UK

Having worked as cabin crew for 10 years on long and short haul flights, the idea of having armed marshals on board is ridiculous and presents a further threat to passengers on board. It is all very well to say they will be trained and experts in their field, but isn't that also a case with the terrorists? Airlines have been too soft with passengers, and I agree with the comment that there should be no hand baggage allowed on board. We see crazy amounts brought on board every day. Spend the money on airport security like El Al. Guns have no place on board an aircraft.
Neil Bilsborough, UK

As a frequent flyer I've got no concerns about air marshals carrying guns. Sure, we need good security on the ground but once we're up in the air, we're on our own and if all else has failed and we don't have an air marshal, well we all saw what happened on the 11th September didn't we? Let's face it, if we're worried about what happens when the guns are used surely it would be in response to an armed terrorist who is likely to blow the plane up anyway so what have you got to lose, a trained air marshal or a bomb carrying terrorist? I know which I'd choose.
Kenneth, Scotland

I recently had a butcher's knife on a plane and scissors flying into Heathrow. By mistake I forgot. The UK cannot control the security at other countries' airports, we need air security because of this!
Andy Beales, UK

September 11th shows us many things about terrorism. But the one thing that shocked and taught me the most was the sheer determination of the terrorists. They are going to do what they are going to do. Increased security will just push them into finding new means and ways. Hijacking a plane and flying it into a building was an unpredictable and inspired idea despite all of the monstrous repercussions. Doesn't that show us that they will stop at nothing at doesn't it make you wonder why they will stop at nothing.
Edith, England.

Whenever senior members of government or the royal family travel on scheduled flights, there are armed protection officers on board the aircraft. I don't see any difference carrying sky marshals but I would have thought that it was bound to happen as our government does everything the USA does - we are, after all, the 51st state.
Christopher Lamb, England

This commitment is coming at the expense of toughening pre-flight security Graham, Scotland

I'm really not happy with this idea because it seems like this commitment is coming at the expense of toughening pre-flight security. Surely air marshals must be seen as the last line of defence, not a substitute for spending on the latest gun/explosive detection technology in airport security? Plus, it would seem easy for terrorists to quickly identify the air marshal and then use them as a hostage. They could even come on board unarmed and get his gun by other means- after all, there were no guns on September 11.
Graham, Scotland

How many layers of security do we need before we have arrived at creating a complete police state? How much longer before we are living in a prison of our own making. For the sake of securing something that by its very nature can never be secure. We are enclosing ourselves in a prison of fear and losing touch with all that is natural and good about life.
Laurence, England

If an aircraft is hijacked at present by fanatics such as those on Sep 11th, the passengers will die. With armed response on board there is a chance that they will survive, not to mention the deterrent benefits of such a move. What do those who oppose such action suggest, negotiate with them? Time for a reality check folks, we are living in a very bitter and twisted world where people are not afraid, but happy to die for their cause!
Kevin Darley, England

Air marshals are not the answer. I travel by air regularly, short-haul and long-haul and security has to be handled on the ground, pre-flight. The standards of pre-flight checks seem to vary enormously across the world. I agree with Peter B - the amount of cabin baggage that airlines permit is also ridiculous particularly in Business Class - this issue should be addressed immediately, one bag only - everything else should be carried in the hold, including duty-free goods.
Terry Barge, England

This is a very bad idea Louise, UK/NL

As someone who travels by air on a regular basis, I totally agree with the sentiments expressed by the pilots. This is a very bad idea. I do not want to get on a plane with anyone carrying a gun! My sympathies go out to the air crew who would undoubtedly get caught up in any situation. This is another example of the current UK governments need to follow the trail of the US.
Louise, UK/NL

As a user of flights I think ALL options should be utilised to their greatest degree to minimise the level of threat. It is no use claiming 'it will increase danger' if you don't accept the hijackers are already armed and with the intent of killing and dying it would not matter whether they have two or three guns. What matters is that if they have a gun 'we' have a gun to fight back, save the aircraft, persons on it and the many thousands of innocent victims on the ground.
Chris W, England

If the government is truly committed to this idea, I think looking to the El-Al example is good idea. There are also technological devices that can prevent hijackers from taking the marshal's weapon. However I believe once terrorists deem hijacking airplanes is too risky, they will try something else.
David Yip, Canada

As a Commercial Pilot, I am dismayed at this new attempt to "improve" flight safety. Putting armed personnel on aircraft simply supplies a source of weaponry to the potential terrorist. Locking flight deck doors has also set safety back a good couple of decades.. communication is everything! The only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to stop them getting on the aircraft in the first place. Passenger profiling and sensible security measures are the way forward. Once again the governments obsession with being seen to be "doing something about it" has got in the way of clear thinking and sensible progress. If you want to improve security on aircraft.. ask those who spend the most time in them... Pilots and Cabin Crew
Pete G, UK

Why are we overlooking more simple solutions? Peter B, GB

Why are we overlooking more simple solutions? Why for example do short haul passengers need to carry anything whatsoever on the plane in the form of hand luggage? Removing bags and even coats on a climate controlled plane would give next to no opportunity to smuggle on weapons or explosives and best of all not actually cost anything or place anyone at risk.
Peter B, GB / CH

Air marshals are a good idea, it will put many people at ease knowing they are travelling safely. Incidentally, we should not be living under fear of the cowardly act of faceless terrorism. The reason that this type of terrorism is cowardly is because those committing it know they have no support from the rest of the world and would easily be overcome in any situation. Once the world gets together and beats it back to under the stone from which it crawled, we will all be better off.
Don, U.K.

I am disgusted. We are becoming an armed society like the US. It solves nothing and increases the dangers. I don't want to fly with armed guards - a shoot out in the cabin? No thank you. Improve ground security.
David, UK/USA

El-Al have been using them since the 70's John, UK

Air marshals are an excellent idea. There are some very silly comments here regarding whether they would be provoked by air-rage or terrorists would overpower them. These people would be, and are, very highly trained professionals, They would be trained in terrorist tactics, they would not be a bunch of John Wayne look-alikes acting gung-ho. It's all well and good asking for better security on the ground, but you always need a last line of defence in case of a mistake and that is what this would be. El-Al have been using them since the 70's, and which airline do you think would be the no 1 target? and how many hijackings have they had? None.
John, UK

As an airline pilot this sends loud alarm signals through my mind. It's a very bad idea indeed. Guns don't mix with aircraft, if the sky marshals are overpowered it's an easy way of getting serious weapons into the wrong hands. A shoot out in an aircraft Cabin would have SERIOUS consequences. It would be far better to leave the terrorists behind the locked cockpit door (bullet proof) and leave the crew (pilots) to land the aeroplane as soon as possible and leave the SAS to sort the aircraft out - once and only once it's on the ground. Being trained as a sky marshal would encounter serious boredom (if not DVT). The chances of keeping highly trained people in the job would be hard.
Ed Warburton, UK

All airport security is pointless whilst they still let you carry glass bottles of inflammable liquid on board. You could turn a bottle of Scotch into a Molotov cocktail in seconds. Or batter someone with it!
Frank, UK

By the time a terrorist steps on board a plane, aviation security has failed. G Y, London

This move may not make air travel safer. By the time a terrorist steps on board a plane with the intention of committing an act of terrorism, aviation security has failed. All security efforts should be concentrated on ensuring that such individuals cannot board an aircraft with anything remotely dangerous. Will we have armed marshals on passenger ships & Eurostar as well?
G Y , London, UK

I guess we'll have to. We've chosen to raise the stakes in our offensive against violent disaffected groups so we'll have to raise our defences too. First planes, then railway stations and trains, then the streets. Still, at least the cage will be gilded.
Steve, UK

Having any sort of arms on board a flight is a bad idea, regardless of who's in charge of them. What if the marshal decides he wants to end it all and take a couple of hundred with him? It's the usual dilemma of who's guarding the guard?
Dominic, UK

It would be better to invest in more stringent control of passengers and baggage in and around the airports. I would be interested to hear whether airline staff feel safer or more at risk as a result of this?
Az Bij, UK

This is madness Linda Wilkinson, Scotland

This is madness. Surely anyone can see that terrorists will no longer have to smuggle weapons onto planes. Instead they will plan to overcome the marshal and hey presto - weapon supplied.
Linda Wilkinson, Scotland

If you must have weapons on a plane then they have to be electrical so as to stun the target rather than blow a hole through them and then through the bulkhead!
Des Colada, UK

I don't think it is a good idea. The terrorists may even take use of the weapons. Furthermore, when marshals use weapons on the airplane, it may possibly hurt the passengers. The better way to prevent a terrorism attack is to strictly prohibit anybody from carrying weapons on planes.
Sophie, Taiwan

I favour air marshals on aircrafts. In my opinion they should be more than one, use appropriate guns suited for that job and be well trained.
Alberto Gottlieb, Italy

What good is a gun against a bomb? Anon, UK

What good is a gun against a bomb? And if the weapon was wrestled off a police officer by terrorists then they no longer need to bother smuggling weapons onboard. A projectile firing weapon in a pressurised space is dangerous and unnecessary if ground security was doing its job!
Anon, UK

If I were a smart terrorist, once everyone was busy thinking about how to protect air travel, I'd leave a bomb on a train or blow up a hotel. We need to reassess the defence of the country as a whole, not just the specific components of the infrastructure which have already been attacked.
Rob, UK

I think it's a great idea. Security is paramount with today's problems and worries. Knowing that there is a person onboard who can bring order to any potential chaos can't be a bad thing. Also, it only takes one person to slow any threat down then other people on board would help. This is definitely a step in the right direction.
Chris, UK

The British police force should not be allowed to use guns until they are trained Ian Hayes, UK

Ian Hayes talks out of his hat. I have never seen an officer behaving in an inappropriate manner. Weapons need to be held in a position where they can be bought to use immediately - for obvious reasons. Remember using weapons in the context that coppers do is different from the battlefield. I say this as an ex skill at arms infantry soldier. I would have every confidence in the officers to exert their duties in the air with skill, bravery and dedication.
R, UK

I feel I must reply to the response made by Ian Hayes regarding the introduction of Armed Air Marshals onto British flights. He makes reference to his observations of armed police on duty at the Old Bailey, Heathrow and Gatwick and describes the Firearms Officers of 3 different U.K. Police Forces as "idiots". I would love to know which "toy town" force he served as a Master Sergeant in? I myself have served for some 20 years in the Army, Police and various other Security Forces, and therefore speak with some authority myself. I have been trained in the use of Firearms in both the military and the civilian police environments. I have to say that comparing the two, the standard of training in the police is far higher than that of the military. I wonder how Mr. Hayes would fair on a Police Firearms Selection Course? Very few pass I can assure you! Far from being the "idiots" that he describes them as, they are dedicated professionals.
Jon Holland, U.K.

In principle, I believe having armed Marshals on board UK aircraft is a good idea and reassuring. However, it is absolutely essential that they are trained to the highest possible level (in terms of tactics, firearm training, terrorist psychology, crisis management, physical ability, authority, etc) . If worst comes to worst, they may have to face exceptional circumstances, which only qualified officers will be equipped to handle and ultimately resolve.
Jeff, UK

Why is there an immediate assumption that armed air marshals will be armed with guns? There are many weapons that pose no risk to the aircraft, ranging from the big stick to electroshock devices. These also have the advantage of giving a hostile no additional advantage in attempting to threaten the crew on the flight deck.
Darren Jones, UK

I think it would be a great deterrent to both terrorists and yobs who drink too much on flights. It is strange not to have security onboard a 150 ton aircraft laden with fuel and passengers that can travel at subsonic speeds!
Gavin, UK

I am hoping that the armed marshals will be on my flight Chad, UK

About two weeks after the September 11th events my partner and I flew to a nation which is mainly Muslim, and spent the entire flight feeling very anxious. This Saturday we are flying to the same destination amid renewed warnings of a possible terrorist attack on British interests. I am hoping that the armed marshals will be on my flight. I would not be able to spend Christmas with my family if I did not go, so I will be grateful for any improvement on current airline security measures. I am reluctant to live my life in fear, but in the case of well-funded suicidal extremists targeting civilians, prevention is always better than cure.
Chad, UK

Waste of time. It doesn't work against "professional" terrorists. They operate in groups of three or more. The first hijacker makes his move; the rest sit quietly till the air marshal breaks cover to intervene. Then the rest of the group neutralises the air marshal. Marshals are notoriously easy to spot and useful only against "amateurs".
Milton A, UK

I am not against Sky Marshals but am totally against the carrying of guns on planes. Someone had the idea that the cockpit should have no access from the cabin area during flights and even suggested that some form of sleeping gas should be used in the event of hijack. Perhaps the gas is going a bit far but sealing up the cockpit to prevent hijackers controlling the plane must be the easiest and safest option.
Pierce, UK

I think it is asking for trouble. I appreciate the idea in principle, but in practice it just opens up doors for abuse. We already hear of how questionable individuals have ended up working in restricted areas in airports - how long until one of them gets a job as an air marshal? Once we start letting weapons on board, then it means standards can slip and gaps in procedure will appear everywhere, it's far too scary to consider.
GR, UK

I think it would be a great deterrent Gavin, UK

I think it would be a great deterrent to both terrorists and yobs who drink too much on flights. It is strange not to have security onboard a 150 ton aircraft laden with fuel and passengers that can travel at subsonic speeds! As long as there are at least two sky marshals in plain clothes then that should minimise the problem of terrorists trying to obtain their weapons off them. The alternative? Shoot the plane down with all passengers? Nothing we can do now is risk free.
Gavin, UK

This is just plain silly! Of course there is a risk that terrorists will try to attack the UK using a plane, but why is that more likely than all the other threats? Someone could run a Channel Ferry into Portsmouth loaded with bombs, blow up a train at 125mph, or kill themselves on a bus. All these things would be awful, but are we to have armed guards on all types of public transport? I suspect not. This is about public reassurance, not counter-terrorism.
Adrian Beney, Durham, UK

The chances of being involved in a hijacking are unbelievably small. I don't want to fly on a plane with someone carrying a gun - how crazy is that? The airlines don't want it. What happens when the first plane crashes thanks to an accident? We don't want to have to live in fear! These scare-mongering plans just serve to soften up the public for attacks against Iraq.
Simon Ryley, UK

They will probably be busier quelling drunken British tourists/football hooligans or the Gallagher brothers. Quite rightly so actually. Yes, marshals please!
James Butler, UK

The last thing I want is a loaded weapon on a plane Trevor H, UK

No! The last thing I want is a loaded weapon on a plane. Use X-Ray machines to prevent passengers having weapons. As we have found out before, better armed police leads to better armed criminals. Besides, what would be the result of a weapon being fired? If you can't fire it, then it'll serve no deterrent value whatsoever!
Trevor H, UK

I believe that terrorists have 'done' airline hijacking, and the next attack will be a different target. If terrorists do target planes, they will not need to smuggle any firearms onboard as they will know that an air marshal has taken one on for them.
Bill Bennetts, UK

Putting guns on an aircraft is a daft idea Bill Brook, UK

Putting guns on an aircraft is a daft idea - no matter who is carrying them. Airport perimeter security is the right place for armed guards, not on the aircraft.
Bill Brook, UK

Definitely not, putting guns on planes makes it easier for terrorists
Anon

When I fly I am 99.99% certain that there are no weapons on my flight. With these Marshals there will be a guaranteed presence of weapons. What happens if these marshals get compromised? Furthermore, who will pay the cost of these. Presumably the passenger in increased flight charges and taxes.
Clare strand, UK

Whilst this might work on internal flights, these officers would either have to carry some form of ID which alerts officials at the destination airport that they are carrying a firearm before they go through metal detectors etc, which would make them identifiable. What happens in a country that will not allow our armed officers off the plane? Will they just sit there and make themselves blatantly obvious to all concerned, or do we really think every country is going to accept these Marshals? Secondly, and more importantly, where exactly are these extra officers coming from, our police forces are already overstretched, so where do we want to lose more resources from?
Steve Walters, UK

Good grief! Haven't they ever heard of explosive decompression? Anyone with a gram of grey matter knows that a pressurized aircraft cabin at 30,000 feet is the worst possible place to discharge a firearm.
Hugh Dunne, US

Explosive decompression from one or more bullet holes is a myth. Aircraft already have a hole in them, this is the decompression valve that regulates the outflow of compressed air from the cabin. I am in favour of armed marshals on aircraft as it is an extra layer of security against terrorism.
John Kemp, UK