I feel all warm and fuzzy inside

[dib]

The government is spending 80 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan but they say 11 billion is too much money to spend on protecting commercial aircraft from shoulder launched missiles. They didnt say they couldnt do it, they said it was too expensive. If I'm a terrorist I'm heading for 'stingers 'r us.'

Of course I guess there's not much you can do about a Barret sniper rifle.

[JP-era]

The government is spending 80 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan but they say 11 billion is too much money to spend on protecting commercial aircraft from shoulder launched missiles.  They didnt say they couldnt do it, they said it was too expensive.  If I'm a terrorist I'm heading for 'stingers 'r us.'

Of course I guess there's not much you can do about a Barret sniper rifle.

218989[/snapback]

 

 

Is this a question of where you put your wall up? As far as Im concerned Id rather not let the idiots in my country at all, Im all for fighting them on THEIR shores rather than ours.

 

Although it costs more money and lives, I have to believe we are better off removing as many as possible from the scene rather than trying to catch whichever ones try to pull stuff over here.

 

Kind of like squashing the roach that crawls onto your floor rather than taking out the whole damn colony.

[UConn James]

PPP.

 

Who needs anti-missile technology on commercial planes?

 

Dept of Homeland Security, Texas branch, would rather spend the money on RVs exclusively used to transport demolition-derby lawn mowers.

 

Could you imagine the horror if the terra-rists' lawn-mower-destructing technology surpassed ours?

 

Who will the GOP blame for big government now?

[dib]

Is this a question of where you put your wall up? As far as Im concerned Id rather not let the idiots in my country at all, Im all for fighting them on THEIR shores rather than ours.

 

Although it costs more money and lives, I have to believe we are better off removing as many as possible from the scene rather than trying to catch whichever ones try to pull stuff over here.

 

Kind of like squashing the roach that crawls onto your floor rather than taking out the whole damn colony.

218996[/snapback]

 

You're making a dangerous assumption, a few actually. You assume that terrorists organize like conventional armies and that a surgical strike will take them out. They're a hydra. Take off one head and two more grow. Have you ever tried to keep ants/roaches out of your house? It's nearly as impossible as keeping terrorists out of this or other countries.

Terrorists will not be content to remain in their home country and wait to be killed. They will bring the war to us.

[dib]

Could you imagine the horror if the terra-rists' lawn-mower-destructing technology surpassed ours?

 

We cannot allow a lawn mower gap Mein Fuhrer

[RkFast]

Anti-missle technology on commercial jets = RJ

 

This type of thing ranks right up there with SDI in its ability to be effective.

 

First off, even a direct strike by a stinger or similar missle is not capable of bringing down a jetliner, even with a direct hit. The hit would have to be so precise to bring it down or even disrupt the aircraft the odds are in the extreme.

 

Second, the technology of an automated anti missle system doesnt exist and even if it did, would probably bankrupt a lot of airlines if they were to retrofit their fleets with it. Airlines could barely afford to retrofit their cockpit doors after 9/11 and all reluctant to retrofit their center gas tanks to prevent explosions, something else on the table in this arena.

 

Third, even if current technology such as flares and chaff was used, it would be ineffective. This is becuase this technology was designed to be used in combat situations, when pilots were focused on fighting the enemy and averting threats such as missles. It is not designed to be used when pilots are focused on the business of takeoff and landing.

[KD in CA]

PPP.

 

Who needs anti-missile technology on commercial planes?

 

Dept of Homeland Security, Texas branch, would rather spend the money on RVs exclusively used to transport demolition-derby lawn mowers.

 

Could you imagine the horror if the terra-rists' lawn-mower-destructing technology surpassed ours?

 

Who will the GOP blame for big government now?

219001[/snapback]

 

 

That was a very blzrul like post. You usually have a point and state it rationally. I'm guessing you didn't have your coffee yet.

 

I can't see spending $11B on this project. There are thousands of ways and places for terrorists to attack. To commit this level of resources for this one area is short sighted. Plus, from what I've read, the technology is far from fool-proof. Anti missile technology works better on a jet fighter going Mach 2 than it does on a huge, lumbering airliner going a few hundred MPH in a straight line as it approaches landing.

[UConn James]

That was a very blzrul like post.  You usually have a point and state it rationally.  I'm guessing you didn't have your coffee yet. 

 

I can't see spending $11B on this project.  There are thousands of ways and places for terrorists to attack.  To commit this level of resources for this one area is short sighted.  Plus, from what I've read, the technology is far from fool-proof.  Anti missile technology works better on a jet fighter going Mach 2 than it does on a huge, lumbering airliner going a few hundred MPH in a straight line as it approaches landing.

219160[/snapback]

 

KD, I'm sad to report I was being entirely rational. (And I don't drink coffee. )

 

The relevant passage:

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) --

 

An audit of the state's spending of nearly $600 million in federal antiterrorism funds found that some of the money was spent improperly, including to buy a trailer that was used to haul lawn mowers to "lawn mower drag races."

 

I'd say C-130s and C-5s are roughly comparable to huge, lumbering airliners (When I first saw each of these in person I was like, Yeah right, this thing's never going to get off the ground!). My brother's plane took fire during takeoff out of Iraq last year and that red glow of the flares and other countermeasures, combined with an excellent pilot (who actually was flying Air Force One in Oct-Nov), were the only things that saved their butts. It can work in commercial airliners, it's a question of cost.

[KD in CA]

KD, I'm sad to report I was being entirely rational. (And I don't drink coffee. )

 

The relevant passage:

I'd say C-130s and C-5s are roughly comparable to huge, lumbering airliners (When I first saw each of these in person I was like, Yeah right, this thing's never going to get off the ground!). My brother's plane took fire during takeoff out of Iraq last year and that red glow of the flares and other countermeasures, combined with an excellent pilot (who actually was flying Air Force One in Oct-Nov), were the only things that saved their butts. It can work in commercial airliners, it's a question of cost.

219475[/snapback]

 

 

LMAO! I stand corrected......thanks for the link. What a shock that people given someone else's money to spend was irresponsible. Yet another arguement against putting more money in the hands of the government.

 

It just seems like a sh-- load of money to spend on this....couldn't $11B do something with our immigration system to help prevent these guys from getting here in the first place?

 

I hope your brother is ok. Mine was there last year too, but had a better chance in an F-15E. He was mostly worried about Patriot missiles.

[UConn James]

LMAO!  I stand corrected......thanks for the link.  What a shock that people given someone else's money to spend was irresponsible.  Yet another arguement against putting more money in the hands of the government.

 

It just seems like a sh-- load of money to spend on this....couldn't $11B do something with our immigration system to help prevent these guys from getting here in the first place?

 

I hope your brother is ok.  Mine was there last year too, but had a better chance in an F-15E.  He was mostly worried about Patriot missiles.   

219487[/snapback]

 

Yes, what a shock. And when you look at which presidents have done that the most since WWII got us to about the current political spectrum, people might be careful in how they vote. As ever, the pols doing the most bitching about it are the ones guilty of it in a 3-1 ratio, only when the Dems did it, they actually paid for it rather than getting us into massive interest payments that would even make a college kid shake their head.

 

I've been slowly pulled over to what was formerly the Dark Side.

 

Went to the air show up at Westover this past autumn, he and his GF are in security. That was truly awesome! Get frequent flyovers here in the NE corner of the state b/c it gives them nice beneath-radar contour training b/c we've got trees and not much else here in the Last Green Valley.

[Alaska Darin]

As ever, the pols doing the most bitching about it are the ones guilty of it in a 3-1 ratio, only when the Dems did it, they actually paid for it rather than getting us into massive interest payments that would even make a college kid shake their head.

219518[/snapback]

Mostly because all of the political stars lined up correctly and the government has similiar accounting to Enron. But don't let that get in the way of a good story. Both parties are more crooked than Babs Streisand's beak.

[Mickey]

Is this a question of where you put your wall up? As far as Im concerned Id rather not let the idiots in my country at all, Im all for fighting them on THEIR shores rather than ours.

 

Although it costs more money and lives, I have to believe we are better off removing as many as possible from the scene rather than trying to catch whichever ones try to pull stuff over here.

 

Kind of like squashing the roach that crawls onto your floor rather than taking out the whole damn colony.

218996[/snapback]

They are terrorists, they don't have countries or shores. They have bank accounts and passports. That is all they need. There is no "wall", not here, there or anywhere. Our ability to prevent a car bombing in St. Louis is only marginally better than our ability to prevent one in Fallujah.

[KD in CA]

Yes, what a shock. And when you look at which presidents have done that the most since WWII got us to about the current political spectrum, people might be careful in how they vote. As ever, the pols doing the most bitching about it are the ones guilty of it in a 3-1 ratio, only when the Dems did it, they actually paid for it rather than getting us into massive interest payments that would even make a college kid shake their head.

 

I've been slowly pulled over to what was formerly the Dark Side.

 

Went to the air show up at Westover this past autumn, he and his GF are in security. That was truly awesome! Get frequent flyovers here in the NE corner of the state b/c it gives them nice beneath-radar contour training b/c we've got trees and not much else here in the Last Green Valley.

219518[/snapback]

 

Well, when it comes to 'paying for it' there were a heck of a lot of other factors involved besides the guy sitting in the White House that make the late 90s different from today. A smoke and mirrors economy generating billions of dollars of extra tax receipts didn't hurt.

 

Anyway.....I was all set to go to the Westover show too. My brother's squadran of F-15Es was supposed to come up for it, but a hurricane or something come through North Carolina that weekend so they had to cancel their appearence.

[stuckincincy]

Mecca and Medina are vulnerable. That is a well-known fact that mitigates certain activities.

[RkFast]

It can work in commercial airliners, it's a question of cost.

219475[/snapback]

 

Oh yeah.....THAT little thing......COST.