Journal Omeger's Journal: Anti-Missle Defenses for Commercial Jets 594
The AP reports that http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/16/airline.anti.missile.ap/index.htmlcommercial jets with anti-missle defense systems. 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, which will cost billions of dollars. Is this good common sense or the costly future of a society based around fear of terrorism?
Please fix the HTML in this.
Anyone know (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Interesting)
Spend less money on defense, and be less of a dick (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Spend less money on defense, and be less of a d (Score:3, Insightful)
What had bin Laden's gang cheesed off was the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, something which went back to 1990. And which might not even have been arrogant, except for the complete failure to realize how humiliating it was to the Saudi people to be reminded that they were incapable of defending themselves.
Since there are people in the Middle East who are still stoked on outrage over the outcome of World War I, it woul
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Sure... acquiesce to the world's body politic and cease to become a sovereign nation. Sounds like a plan."
He didn't say that he said "be less of a dick" to me that means not getting invlolved where we have no business and stop playing world police, one in the same I suppose. I and many other Americans agree with this. We need to fix the problems here before we go galavanting around the globe playing cop.
"Perhaps, nations should keep their own house in order and worry less abou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it sad that mass graves filled with mothers and their children is filed under "not our problem". Would you say the same of tsunami or earthquake victims overseas? How about at a state level? Was Texas
Re:Dude, you don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both.
Physical security is sort of like DRM -- expensive, inconvenient, and largely ineffective against a determined attacker. You can clamor for train station security if you like, but I'd prefer the government stop wasting exorbitant amounts of cash soothing our irrational fear of terrorist attacks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying the US behaves like a dick is flamebait. What you call "behaving like a dick" others call "giving the populace the chance to vote", "allowing women to go to school" and "preventing children from being killed or starved to death because their parents are part of the wrong religious sect".
Re:Spend less money on defense, and be less of a d (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of them even manage to enter into free trade agreements with each other without requiring that the smaller country implement something like the DMCA.
Etc, etc.
Disclaimer: I may live in such a country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny... GP was talking about foreign policy. I don't know about anyone else, but if the US was telling MY country how to vote, who can go to school, and whether children are allowed to stay with their parents based on religious belief, I'd call it "behaving lik
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if you were one of the people who were not allowed to attend school, vote or leave the house unattended.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See Afghanistan.
My advice, meet someone from Iraq.
I have. I spent 6 months over there.
As for the "religious sect" bullshit, that stuff for some reason was never a problem before we lead the insurrection into Iraq.
So you agree that it was a problem. Funny how that slavery stuff was never a problem before the civil war! Just because something wasn't considered a problem before X happened, doesn't mea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Informative)
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]
In Other News (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They could, but flares are essentially an explosive and require allot more precautions. They also require significant operator management, including the requirement to maneuver the aircraft drastically to 'break lock' from the aircraft, hoping like heck the missile locks to a flare.
Also, Flares are far more likely to cause fires in dry areas especially if one is 'punched out' due to a false alarm. (they also get 'used
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
You terrorists make me sick.
Re:Anyone know (Score:4, Funny)
- Who is there?
- CIA.
- CIA who?
- See I a terrorist with too many ideas for attacks!
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone know (Score:4, Interesting)
Terrorism is not our primary problem. Not even close. That people believe it is and let themselves get railroaded by believing it is a large problem. What "everyone knows" is almost invariably what some powerful groups want them to "know".
It's not a failure if they're not trying (Score:4, Insightful)
If the government had public safety as a goal, then it wouldn't have dropped security standards for chemical plants. If there's a manmade Bhopal in New Jersey, it's because the government chose not to prevent it.
If the government had public safety as a goal, there would have been screening for port personnel sometime in the five years after 9/11, and ABC news wouldn't have been able to put a steel cylinder with a uranium slug in it into a cargo container shipped from an area of al-Qaeda activity. Twice.
If the government had public safety as a goal, the intolerably dangerous liquids confiscated from passengers wouldn't have been poured into barrels in the middle of crowds.
Remember, the next time another chunk of Constitution is violated and the government says it's to protect public safety, that public safety is not the government's goal.
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Funny)
Off-topic, but does anyone know where I can get a lithium refill around here?
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Funny)
(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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anyone know (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Can't say which one was the last one though.
The link. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Informative)
How cost-effective this is on your JetBlue flight from Topeka to Boise is another question, of course.
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Numbers that are completely meaningless. If these billions of dollars ultimately save less than 100 lives, are they still worth it? What about when you consider how those billions of dollars could be used to save far more lives in other areas of research? For $300 per flight we could
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DHL_shootdown_inci
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anyone know (Score:4, Informative)
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... (Score:5, Informative)
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
Who Cares If It Makes You Feel Better? (Score:3, Interesting)
Off the top of my head, never. However, it will probably make a whole lot of people 'feel' safe. And, in the end, that's what matters today. A few billion for a sense of safety? That's nothing.
How is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just all the lives that would be saved (better health care, etc.) if this money were better spent.
Re:Who Cares If It Makes You Feel Better? (Score:5, Interesting)
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]:
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unproven speculation.
Just install them in airports (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
cost benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just install them in airports (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From here [wikipedia.org] "Light to carry and relatively easy to operate, the FIM-92 Stinger is a passive surface-to-air missile, shoulder-fired by a single operator, although officially it requires two. The FIM-92B can attack aircraft at a range of up to 15,700 feet (4800 m) and at altitudes between 600 and 12,500 feet (180 and 3800 m)."
So yeah, You are in dan
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How's the popcorn?
Absolute waste of money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Must be because terrorists hate freedom.
Market... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure, lets do that right after we adopt the same strategy for food, autos, toys, and workplace safety since we know that markets are perfect, people are rational and make sound judgements about risk, and the interplay between people and markets can be relied upon to produce the best outcome in almost all cases. That explains why MS Windows runs well over 90% of all PCs.
Re:Market... (Score:5, Insightful)
Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the system is designed to address the more primitive weapons, such as the rocket-propelled grenade, that rely upon good aim prior to launching. AFAIK, it's still pretty hard to shoot down a plane with such a primitive weapon, anyway.
Military technology that is specifically designed to shoot down a plane using an air-to-air missile, or even surface-to-air missile is much more sophisticated, and has a very good chance of defeating such a system at this point.
Re:Brilliant! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Aren't countermeasures cheaper? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Aren't countermeasures cheaper? (Score:5, Interesting)
Need? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
If you had read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Need? (Score:5, Informative)
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
How about (Score:2)
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about Gun Control (Score:2)
Money can be better spent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say it but this is one of the reasons that people that hate the republican party with a passion tick me off. The party doesn't matter.
My senator is tying to force the navy to keep an Aircraft carrier that the Navy says they want to retire! He is also a democrat.
The reason Boxer supporting this bill is simple.
It will bring billions of dollars to defense contractors that are in her state.
That means jobs and contributions so she can get reelected.
Oops... (Score:2, Funny)
Is it a bird? Is it an airplane? Is it Superman? No, it's a missile crashing into the airport terminal!
Huh (Score:2)
Made in California? (Score:5, Interesting)
These expensive new anti-missile systems wouldn't happen to be made in Senator Boxer's home state of California, would they?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Made in California? (Score:5, Informative)
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Corporate Headquarters
1840 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067-2199
(310) 553-6262
Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems
One Northrop Grumman Avenue
El Segundo, California 90245
(310) 332-1000
Northrop Grumman Space Technology
One Space Park
Redondo Beach, California 90278
(310) 812-4321
-Rick
The airline industry sucks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Fantastic. Just fantastic.
Alternative solution (Score:2)
Security is a Joke (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
McVeigh? Almost forgot about him. Which Islamic country was he from, again?
MADPADS not the real threat to aviation safety (Score:2, Insightful)
The real question (Score:3, Funny)
Why not install this at airports? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A ground-based system wouldn't be able to blind a missile's seeker head with a laser, since the seeker is pointed *up*. They'd need to have surface-to-air missile sites with faster missiles designed to shoot down missiles before they hit the target. Sort of like the Nike system of the 50s through 70s, except that Nike missiles were only effecti
False Positives? (Score:2, Funny)
Fear (Score:2, Insightful)
please help me understand this... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
The Stinger missile (Score:3, Insightful)
Next on Mythbusters! (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Military Industrial complex with a different shine (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Can I Get One? (Score:3, Funny)
Frankly, that would be a better use of the money.
Better safety with other systems (Score:5, Insightful)
And for trains I presume? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Who needs real wars when you have imaginary ones! (Score:3, Insightful)
The cold war was an ever-escalating chain of threats, the actual execution of which was always extremely improbable (as both sides knew the end result)... For decades the threat of nuclear war was carted out as an excuse for giving away billions upon billions to defense contractors.
Shortly after the cold war ended, various skirmishes and, then, Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom became the new dog-and-pony by which Congress to appease their constituencies and lobbyists in states where defense contractors represented significant employment. But now it's blossoming into another Vietnam and is beginning to blow up in Congress' face.
So, what's the answer? Give the defense contractors a new mission: Counterterrorism! Since the supply of irrational fear is virtually limitless, the demand for solutions to calm these irrational fears is equally unbounded. Naturally, this could go on for decades, just like the cold war...
How can they convince the people to buy into it? Remember Lisa Simpson and the tiger-repellent rock? You don't see any terrorists around do you? That's the beauty of irrational fears... you don't need to use a rational argument to soothe them.
This is not to say that counterterrorism is bunk... No, it's necessary. But there's a pragmatic approach to identifying real threats and determining the cost of real solutions to them, and then there's the Chicken Little approach. The sky is falling. Watch out for terrorists in Fargo, North Dakota. Attack them before they attack us.
The big problem with this mania that has been exploited by the Bush administration and Republicans in particular is this: While they are quick to point out that no terrorist attacks have occurred on Bush's watch since September 11, 2001... I am equally quick to point out that the worst terrorist attack in US history did, in fact, occur on Bush's watch.
Expensive Pork Project. - Simple Solution Exists (Score:3, Insightful)
Why did't we just borrow it? Why did they spend $90 million already and lose years of opportunity to secure our planes to develop a new system?
Re:Senator who? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:how about offering reasoned resistance to terro (Score:5, Insightful)
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?