Anti-Missile Defenses For Commercial Jets 594
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Just install them in airports (Score:5, Interesting)
Aren't countermeasures cheaper? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Who Cares If It Makes You Feel Better? (Score:3, Interesting)
Billions of dollars. Big deal. How about we discuss the real costly future of a society hobbled by fear of terrorism and (for some reason) Muslims [iht.com]? Yes, I'm talking about the $1 trillion that the Iraq war is costing us. Then there's the human lives being lost. You can't really put a price tag on those, as you would have to do so your own in the process.
These defense systems for passenger jets are a drop in the bucket compared to the war in Iraq. And, as far as human lives go, you can't even compare the two.
In the end, this movement doesn't even need to be common sense. It just has to be something that counteracts the fear that some Americans live with. I myself am not one of them--but if these politicians that the country elected believe they'll do the trick, then go ahead. I'd much rather see legislation like this being passed than to have our fearless leader attack Iran or North Korea.
To recap, it's not about if it would ever have saved a passenger jet, it's more so that people will think that the security on planes have become impervious to the types of attacks that terrorists have the means to execute.
I suppose now I'll be called an isolationist.
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not install this at airports? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Aren't countermeasures cheaper? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:Absolute waste of money (Score:1, Interesting)
That's BS. There's huge room for improvements in car safety. This is proven by the existence of race cars where the driver could walk away from a crash after hitting a concrete barrier at 200mph. Meanwhile, the average car driver faces serious injuries if he does the same thing at 40mph.
People say "But it would be too expensive to improve the safety of cars!". That's where the billions of dollars being spent on nebulous terrorist threats would come into play.
And as a countermeasure... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And as a countermeasure... (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 up' and one counter-counter measure is to trick the aircrafts self protection system into firing off all its flares before firing your missile at it.
Fighters use flares primarily for the combat phases of flight, and are usually turned off for the landing and takeoff phase for safety reasons. This DIRCM system, while a total waste of money, negates most of the downfalls of flares, and requires almost no operator input. (They just need to turn it on and off at the right times)
Re:Anyone know (Score:5, Interesting)
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".