Anti-Missile Defenses For Commercial Jets

The AP reports that the first anti-missile defense system has been installed for testing on a commercial jet, a FedEx cargo carrier. The system is intended to detect the launch of a shoulder-fired missile at takeoff or landing, and disable the missile with a laser beam. Sen. Barbara Baxter (D-California) is one of the supporters of the system. She and other members of Congress are hoping to equip all US commercial passenger liners with this system in 20 years, at a cost of billions of dollars. Is this good common sense or the costly future of a society hobbled by fear of terrorism?

Anyone know

[solevita (967690)]

When the last time this system would have saved an aircraft?

Re:Anyone know

[Lord_Slepnir (585350)]

Just last week, on a connector flight from Des Moines International Airport to Minneapolis, we came under heavy flak around Albert Lea. Don't believe what the pilot is telling you: This is NOT turbulence, it's the Terrorists with Flak 88s trying to shoot down airliners. Should the Democrats ever surrender a supply of shoulder-launched heatseaking missiles to the Terrorists, this system will save countless lives.

Off-topic, but does anyone know where I can get a lithium refill around here?

Re:Anyone know

[Profane MuthaFucka (574406)]

Are you trying to be funny? Were you attempting to use your humor skills on Slashdot readers? Are you an idiot? Do you realize that Slashdot readers cannot recognise humor without a humor detection program? Oh, you're going to suffer. You think you're so smart, but you will SUFFER for your attempt at humor. We don't WANT it here. Humor is spam to us. We don't want anything funny here. Take your funny and go home. GET OUT . LEave with your funny comments now. Don't come back until you can be serious like me.

(This has been a public service announcement to let you know what the dumbass who moderated you as a troll was thinking.)

Re:Anyone know

[Lord_Slepnir (585350)]

This is where the slashdot moderation system breaks down. Currently the comment is "80% funny, 10% overrated, 10% troll". It is at +5, but I'm going to lose two karma for it anyway.

And before anyone responds with "But smart-ass comments like yours don't enhance the discussion", Just set Funny to be -5 for you. Problem solved. Or grow a sense of humor.

Re:Anyone know

[dr_dank (472072)]

This is where the slashdot moderation system breaks down.

Thats because they've rerouted power to the anti-missle defense system.

and the lameness filter killed my ascii missle. That system sure works.

Re:Anyone know

[haeger (85819)]

Well, it does seem to happen every now and then.
Can't say which one was the last one though.

The link. [wikipedia.org]

.haeger

Re:Anyone know

[Otter (3800)]

There was a missile fired at an Israeli passenger jet in Kenya on the same day as the hotel bombing there, a few years ago. Supposedly it was deflected by an ECM system that's standard (again, supposedly) on all Israeli passenger planes.

How cost-effective this is on your JetBlue flight from Topeka to Boise is another question, of course.

Re:Anyone know

[Total_Wimp (564548)]

So one plane in the history of aviation might have been saved. Maybe

I think this would make good terrorist MasterCard commercial:

A year of nationalized health care in Canada = about $1,900
A year of food in American = about $3,000
A habitat for humanity house = about $35,000

Scaring Americans into spending "billions" to possibly save between zero and a couple of hundred lives instead of spending it where it's guaranteed to make a difference = Priceless

TW

Re:Anyone know

[LunaticTippy (872397)]

I'd pay an extra $2 per flight to see armed monkeys. Not that it has anything to do with terrorism, I just like the idea of armed monkeys.

Re:Anyone know

[Prophet of Nixon (842081)]

I was kind of hoping for a controlled experiment: you have a group of FedEx planes with the system and a control group of FedEx planes without the system. Then you hand out SAMs at the street corner and tell everyone to fire them with wild abandon at FedEx planes. Explain that they are big flying pinatas. At the end of a month or when everyone is out of SAMs you tally up how many FedEx planes are left and see which group they were in. Easy.

Re:Anyone know

[Grey Ninja (739021)]

Addendum to my previous post. (I was right. It was never).

From TFA:

No passenger plane has ever been downed by a shoulder-fired missile outside of a combat zone. But terrorists linked with al Qaeda are believed to have fired two SA-7 missiles that narrowly missed an Israeli passenger jet after it took off from Mombasa, Kenya, in November 2002.

(Please note that SA-7 missiles are IR guided).

Not to mention...

[DG (989)]

...the considerably unlikely chain of events that has to properly line up in order to result in a downed aircraft.

1) First you have to get ahold of a missile. Hollywood notwithstanding, shoulder-launched SAMs are relatively rare, even in mainstream standing armies. The scales of issue just aren't all that large. They are expensive and fragile units, much more so than any other weapon, so they don't get handed out to just anyone.

Probably the largest concentration was in North Vietnam during the 60's, but North Vietnam had tons of time to accumulate them, and a direct threat (daily US bombing raids) to counter.

There just aren't a lot of them out there to be had.

2) Then, if you can find one, it has to be operational. Explosives and electronics have shelf-lives, and as mentioned, these things are fragile. If it hasn't been well treated, there's a nontrivial chance that some critical component will fail to function, and it won't fire, guide, or explode.

3) If you've got one and it is operational, then you have to find a trained operator. Even "fire and forget" missiles require some skill to operate, and even if the weapon is American-proof simple to use, the operator still needs to be familiar with the ideal operating envelope - what aspect should the target be engaged with (head-on? tailchaser? deflection?) Does the position of the sun matter? Do you aim at an engine, or centre of mass? Lead or lag?

4) Assuming an operational missile and a trained operator who takes a good shot, the accuracy rate of these devices is not high. I'd imagine a commercial jet would be an easier target (although with cooler running turbofan engines, maybe not) but even so, there is a high statistical percentage of these missiles that will fail to impact even when fired in perfect conditions - they work best in volleys.

5) Assuming a hit, the odds on downing the aircraft are not good. Airliners are big, solid aircraft, and shoulder-fired missiles by design cannot have very large warheads - you have to package propulsion, guidance, and warhead into something light enough to be carried by a single person. Being struck by a missile is certainly unpleasant, but I'd expect any modern airliner to be able to suffer catastrophic failure of a single engine and still be able to fly (long enough to get back down at least). That's not to say that the missile *couldn't* bring down a liner (sever the controls to a control surface and I think you've got a crash) but neither are you looking at a Hollywood style giant fireball.

While it is certainly *possible* that one could experience a terrorist organization bringing together a fresh missile, a trained operator, and a lucky shot, it's not very *likely* - to the point where I think the defensive device is just silly.

DG

Re:Anyone know

[Lord_Slepnir (585350)]

They do, they're just harder to track than radar guided missiles. It's basically a "Interesting, there's now a small object traveling at Mach 8 right for me" kind of system.

Spend less money on defense, and be less of a dick

[spineboy (22918)]

What if the US spends less money on defense , and instead behaves less like a dick. Instead we should concentrate on being a little less arrogant, and be more world friendly. Foreign relations has really taken a turn or the worse in the last 6 years or so. Or we can continue the current trend, and then just travel everywhere in personal sized mini tanks, with anti missile/IUD technology.

People keep on trying to put bandages on the problem, instead of addressing what is actually wrong, kind of like treating a fever with some aspirin, instead of treating the infection.

Re:Dude, you don't get it

[Xugumad (39311)]

By the same logic, I should wear a bullet proof (okay, knife proof as I'm in the UK, and they're subtly different) vest at all times, incase someone decides randomly to try killing me.

Okay, here's another one; why aren't we equipping trains with these? Why are people still allowed on trains with significant amounts of liquid. Is it because trains are actually less at risk, or because everyone's running around panicking about planes?

The US needs to sort out its foreign policy, stop worrying about planes all the time, and maybe, just maybe, think about things that kill people more. Like, disease, car crashes, natural disasters...

Re:Anyone know

[kharchenko (303729)]

It doesn't "fire" anything - it illuminates the missile warhead with high-intensity infra-red beams to oversaturate its sensors, so that the missile looses tracking. So the worst thing that could happen is that you could illuminate some schmucks' face, but (according to TFA) the laser intensity is not high enough to cause eye damage.

Re:Anyone know

[russ1337 (938915)]

>>>> I honestly don't know how the hell you would detect such a missile tracking you

They detect the flame out the back of the missle. Chemicals given off by the rocket motor burn across the spectrum (visible, UV and Infra-red). The optical sensors on the aircraft pick up the burning, specifically in the UV range. Sunlight in this spectrum does not get through the upper atmosphere, so it is essentially "dark". Only a few other things emit at this range are things like arc-welders, but software can be used to eliminate these to improve the false alarm rate.

>>> "As far as I knew, even military jets have no early warning of IR missiles. " Oh yes they do. [globalsecurity.org]

Re:Anyone know

[flyingsquid (813711)]

Terrorists aren't dumb, but we keep acting like they are. They know they can't rush an aircraft with just a handful of boxcutters: the passengers would turn on them and tear them limb from limb. 9/11 only worked because of the element of surprise, it wouldn't work again. Yet the government keeps preparing ways to keep us safe from another 9/11 attack. Likewise, why are they going to bother going after aircraft when so many easy targets are available?

Terrorists will just attack somewhere else. The most obvious target is mass transit. Leave a bunch of bombs on the New York Subway, just like they did with the trains in Madrid- that would probably be a lot easier than smuggling a Stinger missile into the US. Or plant an IED on the Northwest Corridor and wait for a packed Acela train to go over it. Plant a limpet mine on the bottom of a ferry- if you can sink it fast enough you could kill a few hundred people.

It's all just a show: most of the security efforts I've seen in place do comparatively little to make anyone safer, they're just designed to make us *feel* safer. They're not security, they're a security blanket.

Re:Anyone know

[Zaatxe (939368)]

- Knock-knock
- Who is there?
- CIA.
- CIA who?
- See I a terrorist with too many ideas for attacks!

Re:Anyone know

[solevita (967690)]

It's all just a show: most of the security efforts I've seen in place do comparatively little to make anyone safer, they're just designed to make us *feel* safer. They're not security, they're a security blanket.

Controversial, perhaps, but I'd argue that these measures aren't designed to make us feel safer, but more afraid.

We little people are so at risk, what would we do without the government to save us?

Re:Who Cares If It Makes You Feel Better?

[nido (102070)]

It just has to be something that counteracts the fear that some Americans live with.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is nothing to be afraid of, and Americans are only afraid because of the corporate media propaganda machine.

A False Sense of Insecurity? [pdf] [cato.org] [google cache] [216.239.59.104]:

Throughout all this, there is a perspective on terrorism that has been very substantially ignored. It can be summarized, somewhat crudely, as follows:

• Assessed in broad but reasonable context, terrorism generally does not do much damage.
• The costs of terrorism very often are the result of hasty, ill-considered, and overwrought reactions.

A sensible policy approach to the problem might be to stress that any damage terrorists are able to accomplish likely can be
absorbed, however grimly. While judicious protective and policing measures are sensible,extensive fear and anxiety over what may at base prove to be a rather limited problem are mis-placed, unjustified, and counterproductive

I don't know that I've yet seen an apology from a newspaper's editors for being taken by last summer's "liquid bomb plot". They can't, of course, because they're selected by the paper's corporate owners to advance the "consolidation of power" agenda. If the media barons were to suddenly say "sorry, there never really was anything to fear, and 9/11 might have actually been a 'false flag' operation..." Well - however would George Bush justify setting up permanent bases in Iraq, and his plans to attack Iran and Syria?

Re:Who Cares If It Makes You Feel Better?

[MobyDisk (75490)]

It occurs to me that you might be trying to be funny, but I'll respond anyway.

However, it will probably make a whole lot of people 'feel' safe.

It does the opposite - people know there are defensive missiles on the plane, so they get more scared because the thought of a SAM never occurred to them before. Plus, they will likely get a red/orange/yellow/green warning light stating the likelyhood of getting attacked on this flight. It is fearmongering.

And as long as that billions of dollars goes back into the economy of the United States, it's not like we'd be losing billions of dollars.

You misunderstand economics: They money doesn't just go in a circle and come back where it started. Even if you used all domestic workers and parts, which is impossible in today's economy, money is still lost. Materials are mined, energy and time are spent. Wasted money is wasted money.

If that still doesn't make sense, consider this: The only time that this cycle reaches near 100% cyclic efficiency is if you pay a domestic worker for a labor-only task. Ex: A wealthy guy pays someone to wash their yacht. Of course, even that isn't a perfect cycle since water and gas to drive there and food and electricity and soap were all consumed in the process.

These defense systems for passenger jets are a drop in the bucket compared to the war in Iraq.

If we used that logic, then we would spend money on everything and anything. Because, it surely is cheaper than the war in Iraq! That's not an argument FOR doing this. It is an argument AGAINST the war.

Let me concede you your idea though: If the goal is to make people think they are safe, and to make terrorists think it isn't worth trying -- then we should test a system like this, then pretend to install it.

Just install them in airports

[Monkeyman334 (205694)]

A shoulder fired rocket can not shoot that high. The plane is much more vulnerable when it is taking off or landing. So ... they should just install them at big airports to protect all jets coming in or out.

Re:Just install them in airports

[by Anonymous Coward]

These systems blind the missile by painting it with a laser, disrupting the sensor at the tip of the missile. It doesn't seem like such a system will work unless the missile and laser are pointing at each other so a ground based system might be pointless.

cost benefit

[Archangel Michael (180766)]

How about a cost/benefit analysis of such a system before we knee jerk expensive solution to a low risk problem.

The problem here is that people equate one 450 person aircraft with more value that of 40,000 fatalities due to automobile accidents.

Air travel is one of the safest forms of travel, bar none. We don't need to spend BILLIONS of dollars making it safer, mainly because it isn't going to make it much safer.

It all sounds good, but really, it is a waste.

Absolute waste of money

[rhavenn (97211)]

An absolute waste of money. The only thing it's good for is making defense contractors richer.

Market...

[m0rph3us0 (549631)]

Why not just let airlines install the devices as the market demands, a portion of the market will want protection and a portion will not. The added cost will allow consumers to decide whether the protection is "worth it".

Re:Market...

[FooAtWFU (699187)]

Funny you should mention risk. Well, as we all know (or we all should know, before making snide comments about the topic :) people have a scientifically documented tendency to greatly overestimate risks that are perceived as out of their control compared to risks that are in their control. This is why people are more afraid of flying or of terrorist attacks than they are of driving to work. This is why some people will clamor for something mildly ridiculous like an anti-missile laser to be put on all airplanes, but may or may not buckle up in their cars.

Brilliant!

[pla (258480)]

The system is intended to detect the launch of a shoulder-fired missile at takeoff or landing, and disable the missile with a laser beam.

What a great idea! Now when the terrorists eventually take over another round of planes, they can effectively block missiles intended to shoot them down before reaching sensitive targets.


How about if next, we equip subway cars with nuclear self-destruct devices so terrorists can't use them to make their speedy getaways?

Re:Brilliant!

[drinkypoo (153816)]

What a great idea! Now when the terrorists eventually take over another round of planes, they can effectively block missiles intended to shoot them down before reaching sensitive targets.

The system will be mounted on the belly of the aircraft, so an air-to-air missile launched from above will not be affected by it. It's possible to perform aerobatics in a passenger aircraft (rolls and such) but even so it is highly unlikely that a system designed to detect the launch of a ground-to-air missile could do anything about air-to-air missiles. If they could, then every aircraft in the military arsenal of sufficient size to carry the system would have one already, for missile point defense in flight.

In addition, passenger craft are subsonic (with a notable exception or two) while any contemporary jet is supersonic, and passenger craft are ungainly pigs compared to fighter aircraft. Thus you don't even need missiles; cannons would do the job just fine. You could literally line up and blow off the engines without substantial effort.

Re:Brilliant!

[johndiii (229824)]

Actually, it will only work on the IR-guided missiles. This would include the vast majority of man-portable SAMs, but not something like an RPG. Though in trying to shoot down a plane a .50-caliber machine gun would probably work better than an RPG. The threat that they are trying to defend against is from an individual outside the airport, trying to shoot down an airliner from a short but significant distance away. Far enough to avoid being noticed (and quickly killed or arrested) is probably too far to have much assurance of a hit from an RPG.

The laser system is apparently designed to spoof IR seekers (slightly better article [aviationnow.com]; company PR site [northropgrumman.com]), which seems fairly intriguing. As a feasibility study, this is probably a good idea. But I think that it would be a waste of time and money to install it on airliners in general.

Aren't countermeasures cheaper?

[KDR_11k (778916)]

I'd assume you can get a few chaffs and flares for cheap these days. No need for all this fancy and probably expensive laser stuff.

Re:Aren't countermeasures cheaper?

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

Apparently the secret service thinks so too. Both Air Force One and Marine One ( Marine One is the chopper that the prez uses ) are equipped with flare and chaff countermeasures. And neither has been seen sporting a belly bulge like TFA shows to mount lasers.

Need?

[jandrese (485)]

Just out of curiosity, how many commercial airliners in the US have been shot down with shoulder fired missiles? I haven't had any luck trying to find an instance in Google.

I could see a system like this for a plane that has to fly over Iraq or South Africa, but inside of the US/Canada/Europe/Australia/Asia it doesn't seem to be necessary, worse, a system like this is probably going to require massive power and have considerable complexity. Highly complex pieces of equipment are liable to malfunction at some point and possibly even cause a crash.

No, installing something like this in every airplane in the US fleet is just not realistic. Having it as an option for people who have to fly near areas where terrorists have shoulder fired missiles and a grudge against the west is good though.

Re:Need?

[beacher (82033)]

I can tell you this based on my direct experience as a Stinger gunner.

Shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles are built primarily to shoot combat jets out of the sky. The amount of explosives (less than a pound of something like HT3) is negligible. The missile's primary objective is to rip the skin open of the wings/fuselage, having the explosive go off inside the jet is a bonus. The sheer air friction of a torn fuselage will rip a small jet apart.

Apply this to a commercial airliner. Most missiles will hit the fuselage, and lets assume a gaping hole was created. The most that will happen will be rapid decompression (at altitude), significant flight handling differences, and maybe some people will get sucked out of the plane. More than likely a commercial airliner would land after being hit with a shoulder fired SAM. The only chance of taking out a significant chunk of the plane would be to hit it just after takeoff and get the fuel tanks, but you can't exactly pick where you want the missile to hit the plane.

They should invest the research funds towards making better baggage scanners.
-B

Made in California?

[spike2131 (468840)]

Sen. Barbara Baxter (D-California) is one of the supporters of the system.

These expensive new anti-missile systems wouldn't happen to be made in Senator Boxer's home state of California, would they?

Re:Made in California?

[RingDev (879105)]

The 'Guardian' product is developed by Northrop Grumman, which, you guessed it! Has offices in California:

  Northrop Grumman Corporation
Corporate Headquarters
1840 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067-2199
[phone]

Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems
One Northrop Grumman Avenue
El Segundo, California 90245
[phone]

Northrop Grumman Space Technology
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
[phone]

-Rick

The airline industry sucks.

[Skadet (528657)]

Wow. Running in debt, passenger cabins that aren't clean, meals that have been cut from shorter flights, and all on top of *higher ticket prices*. Now they want to install frickin' laser beams? That'll do wonders for affordability. Maybe a nice fat Government subsidy is in order?

Fantastic. Just fantastic.

Security is a Joke

[Mr_Blank (172031)]

There is no such thing as security. Whatever one person can put together, another person can take apart. Virus scanners, the locks on my house and home, and the passwords on my bank accounts are all meant for one thing: To keep honest people honest. If someone really wants to, any security I could encumber some part of my life with can be undone by someone of focused malicious intent.

    The more society spends on 'security' the harder it is to undo that security. Build a Great Wall of China and it keeps the invaders out. Build a Great Wall of the Rio Grande and it keeps the Mexican immigrants out. But given time or motivation, invaders and immegrants find ways around the walls.

    The more society relies on 'security' the more devestating it is when that security fails. These planes will have protection against missles (how many times have planes been shot down by missles anyhow?!). I am sure some motivated criminal will determine that using a high powered large caliber rifle or remote controlled airplane with C4 attached works just as well for bringing down a plane; or something else we haven't even considered.

    In my view, the only way to minimize acts of terror, keep illegal immigrants at home, and make the world 'safe' is with economic development. If a person has a full stomach and something to do with their hands so they can avoid hunger tomorrow, then that person is too happy and busy to 'terrorize' or risk life and limb crossing the dessert.

    Money spent on walls, airline bomb closets and anti-air to air missle lazers, and even super cool rail guns are all poor investments, in my view. Better to spend the money on starting businesses, funding schools, and giving incentives to entrapeneurs. If everyone is fed and busy, the world is as safe as it could be (though still not perfectly safe).

Why not install this at airports?

[giafly (926567)]

designed to defend against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles during takeoffs and landings.

Wouldn't it be better and cheaper to base this on the ground at the small proportion of airports used by large passenger aircraft, not on the aircraft themselves? That way size and weight wouldn't matter, it would be in a less hostile environment, and maintenance would be easer?

please help me understand this...

[David_Shultz (750615)]

if you were close enough to hit an airplane with a shoulder fired rocket, couldn't you instead use explosives to damage the runway enough to cause a crash? The aftermath of a failed landing or even a failed takeoff is probably enough to serve the terrorists purpose. Anyone remember the failed takeoff of the Air France plane at Pearson international? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358 [wikipedia.org]
Not to mention the fact that I can't find a single instance of a commercial aircraft being hit by a shoulder fired rocket.

This is a stupid waste of money. Of course, it will earn some weapons manufacturers some cash, and it will make some people feel safer -at least until they realize that the next commercial hijackers now control a high-powered laser, but hey, who am I to mock attempts at the "war on terror"? Who'd have thought that waging a war against an abstract noun could have been so tricky?

Next on Mythbusters!

[RyanFenton (230700)]

I say we let the MythBusters team test this one out, before the congress votes on it.

Adam: On this episode of MythBusters, we test if terrorists can use the signal from a missile-jamming laser system to actually track the plane more accurately than would otherwise be possible.

Jamie: Yes, this is one of those stories we've been getting a lot of email about, and we've gotten special support from the folks at Northrop Grumman. I'm really looking forward to trying this one out.

[20 minutes of footage of tinkering with rocket guidance systems and guest rocket scientists advice, with several shots of rockets missing a watermelon with a simple modulated laser on it, and at last some splattered fruit.]

Adam: This is so cool - I think we're ready for the real test.

Jamie: Yeah, I'm really happy with how this came out. I'm surprised how easy it was to change the laser guidance on these missiles to track towards our laser masking system. We'll just have to see how the real system pans out.

Announcer: Coming up next: Will the airplane defense work against the modified missile? [Video of a missile heading towards an airplane] See what happens, after this break!...

Hey - at least it would be better standards than the folks who currently test our voting equipment, and likely many of our governmentally-mandated military expenditures.

Ryan Fenton

Thank god

[Sneftel (15416)]

Thank god that FedEx is finally protected against those UPS militia death-squads.

Military Industrial complex with a different shine

[dfenstrate (202098)]

Barbara Boxer is a Senator from California.

Northrup Grumman makes this system, and it's a potential multi-billion dollar contract.

Northrup Grumman is headquartered in Los Angelas, CA.

I just wanted to point that out. Every other highly modded comment is pointing out how there are better ideas than this.

Better safety with other systems

[Neil Watson (60859)]

Would more lives be saved inventing and installing an in-cabin fire suppression system instead of an anti-missile system?

And for trains I presume?

[cliffski (65094)]

If for planes, why not trains? If I was a terrorist, I'd skip airports entirely, far too many cameras and police. I'd target a high speed intercity train. If I time it right, I should be able to blast a 125mph train into pieces on a high speed track, in time to cause major derailments from other trains. Given that during commuter times, there could easily be 200-300 people on each train, I'd easily rack up the same body count as I would by hitting an airliner (assuming the airliner didn't crash into a tower block).
And I can hit the train from pretty much anywhere along it's route.

Trying to make us all immune to terrorist attacks is just impractical. We are treating the symptom, not the disease.

Shit

[bucky0 (229117)]

Why are we such pussies? Look around, in the US, something like:

40,000 people die/year in car accidents
20,000 murders/year

And we get all worked up because some people managed to hijack 4 airplanes and killed 3,000 people? It really sucks, and I understand the pain that the people left behind had to face (as well as the people who died that day). But because of that one attack, we've completely gone bonkers and blown an entirely disproportionate amount of money on making sure it doesn't happen again compared to larger social ills.

Ugh, it just burns me.

Re:Senator who?

[CmdrSlack555 (451965)]

That'd be Barbara Boxer. WTG, crack editing staff!

Re:How about

[solevita (967690)]

Because by selling both the cause and the remedy, you get to profit twice! Happy days.

Re:how about offering reasoned resistance to terro

[808140 (808140)]

does anyone agree that this needs to be stopped before it becomes a reality?

This is the sort of ridiculous, slippery-slope argument that the government loves to throw in our faces when trying to justify the erosion of our civil rights and the wanton military spending that are ostensibly necessary "because of the terrorists."

There are not going to be actual "gangs" of Islamic fundamentalists running around in your neighborhood, killing people in front of your kids. First, there are not actually enough fundamentalists to make this happen. Second, we do have a police force, you know -- it's their job to deal with gangs. You could argue that they don't do a particularly good job of that in some parts of LA, but to be honest, even there is nothing like it is in the movies. People with families live in Compton. There are gangs, to be sure, but even there, people killing others in front of your kids is an uncommon occurence, not an everyday affair.

Let's talk about a "reasoned" response: 3000 people died on 9/11, that's all. It's tragic, but come on. How many people die in car crashes every year? The reason people keep bringing it up is because, every year, nearly 40 thousand people do!

Here's the reality of the situation: 6 years later, we've accomplished nothing that is actually relevant to 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is still at large, as much as the government tries to understate his importance. No replacement for the WTC is on the horizon, despite much in the way of planning.

However, we have used the event to justify tremendous, unreasonable spending on cockamamy schemes like this one that will do exactly nothing to help prevent terrorism. Seriously, the people that came up with the 9/11 plan and executed it were brilliant, from a logistical, strategic, and creativity perspective. Do you really think they're a one-trick pony? That now that they've done 9/11, the only possible terrorist attack they can think of involves running a plane into a building? Because that seems to be the way our administration thinks.

We've gone to the ends of the earth to make flying a pain, hurting our economy and annoying our passengers. And for what? To prevent another 9/11? Why not just blow up a building? Why bother with the plane? We're expecting it, it would be stupid.

Maybe George Bush was right, after all -- maybe they did attack us because they "hate our freedom." Lamentably, our response seems to be to throw our freedom away to appease them.

Here's a wild thought: how about just ignoring them?