58 replies to this topic

[Cryptkeeper]

Chris, on 6 Jan 2008, 10:21, said:

This "protection" will back fire If a plane got hijacked and the Airforce's only option is to shoot it down. How can they shoot down a countermeasure protected Jet liner?

use sat guided missles this mainly to interfere with infrared and radar guided ones

i think the military should have codes to airplanes nav and auto pilot computer of all commercial liners that if sent over a certain frequency would force the plane to land at the nearest airport that kinda tech would help against all sorts of hijacking not just ones used as missiles

so instead of firing a missle to keep the plane from hitting a building they could just simply force them to land it also locks the cabin bay doors with a electronic code based lock that only certian intercept squadron leaders know

Edited by cryptkeeper, 07 January 2008 - 01:23.

[ChesterM]

cryptkeeper, on 7 Jan 2008, 1:22, said:

Chris, on 6 Jan 2008, 10:21, said:

This "protection" will back fire If a plane got hijacked and the Airforce's only option is to shoot it down. How can they shoot down a countermeasure protected Jet liner?

use sat guided missles this mainly to interfere with infrared and radar guided ones

i think the military should have codes to airplanes nav and auto pilot computer of all commercial liners that if sent over a certain frequency would force the plane to land at the nearest airport that kinda tech would help against all sorts of hijacking not just ones used as missiles

so instead of firing a missle to keep the plane from hitting a building they could just simply force them to land it also locks the cabin bay doors with a electronic code based lock that only certian intercept squadron leaders know

While I agree with you on one level about how nice it would be to do this, that sort of thing makes me innately suspicious about how it can be abused by governments. I tend to strongly dislike even possible restrictions to our ability to travel, even if it is a solution that is hard to argue against. However planes are a rather special case, in that they really are just great big bombs full of people that can travel anywhere fast, so I do think this should be explored.

[Wizard]

AllStarZ, on 6 Jan 2008, 7:52, said:

Personally, I don't feel like giving funding to arms contractors whose very products put said planes at risk.

Here-bloody-here. I see this as intrinsic "Gun-ho-logic". Ie, he has a gun, so I will have a gun, so everyone has a gun, and we all shoot each other. Rather than waste money, millions of dollars on this stupid system, it would be more worth while and cheaper to partol the areas around air fields that are in reach of a stinger. Just because a terrorist has a weapon, doesn't give everyone the right to a better weapon. As quoted in the original post, I agree that the governments should put the money into stoppping people launching things at planes in the first place. Prevention over cure everytime, but then, that wouldn't be capitalism would it?

Edit: Potentially inflamatory statement removed - sorry didn't realise what I was writing

Edited by Wizard, 07 January 2008 - 10:51.

[narboza22]

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to even have a basic patrol around every airport? It would be infinitely than the cost of a missile defense system. Plus, any self respecting terrorist would simply find a building somewhere where a patrol wouldn't be able to find him.

[Wizard]

Are you telling me that one guy with a gun to drive around an airport is more costly than a sophisticated anti missle system? I doubt that. There is usually quite a police presence at airports anyway. I fail to see how this is the more expensive option.

Edited by Wizard, 07 January 2008 - 17:18.

[Whitey]

Are you aware that a definite cure has less risk than a potential prevention?

[Nid]

A good idea, but perhaps, a little un-needed?
How many recent attacks have we had on civilian airlines via missile?
It could be useful if such a situation arises, but couldn't they be spending money on something better?
like fire-arms/weapons training for pilots on civillian airlines, to protect against hijacking.

Edited by nidmeister, 07 January 2008 - 21:51.

[Wizard]

Boidy, on 7 Jan 2008, 21:29, said:

Are you aware that a definite cure has less risk than a potential prevention?

Thanks for emphasising my point!

[AllStarZ]

Boidy, on 7 Jan 2008, 17:29, said:

Are you aware that a definite cure has less risk than a potential prevention?

Are you even sure this is a cure to a problem? Or simply a pitch by defense contractors to earn even more money by playing on everyone's fears?

[Whitey]

Call me paranoid, but the fear of being struck by an anti-aircraft missile isn't the last thing on my mind when I'm in a plane. I believe that whatever can be done to protect innocent lives should be done. If I had the money, I would probably build myself a fallout/bomb shelter. You can never be too safe.

[AllStarZ]

Boidy, on 7 Jan 2008, 18:04, said:

Call me paranoid, but the fear of being struck by an anti-aircraft missile isn't the last thing on my mind when I'm in a plane. I believe that whatever can be done to protect innocent lives should be done. If I had the money, I would probably build myself a fallout/bomb shelter. You can never be too safe.

I hardly think giving money to the same people who make anti-aircraft missiles makes me feel "safe". It just gives them more incentive to develop a better mouse in response to a better mouse trap. Defense contractors have no moral compunctions, they simply are there to make money.

Besides, no defence is perfect. If they really want to take down an airliner they'll find another way to do it. Besides, has there ever been a "100%" cure for anything? How do you know that this cure would be infinitely more successful than making sure no one brings in a package large enough to fit a 4 foot long launcher to the outskirts of an airport.

I'm not discounting the possibility of it occurring though. I just think that there are better ways of dealing with this.

Edited by AllStarZ, 07 January 2008 - 22:16.

[Wizard]

Hence the old term violence begets violence!

[AllStarZ]

Wizard, on 7 Jan 2008, 18:11, said:

Hence the old term violence begets violence!

No... Even peace begets violence.

[Whitey]

And if everything begets violence, might as well make the best of it.

[narboza22]

Quote

Are you telling me that one guy with a gun to drive around an airport is more costly than a sophisticated anti missle system? I doubt that. There is usually quite a police presence at airports anyway. I fail to see how this is the more expensive option.

The reason that the military is shifting to automated guard systems around their bases is because it costs a ridiclous amount of money to recruit, train, equip, and pay a human guard, especially since the guards are usually enlisted men that only serve a short time with the military, which forces the military start the recruiting, training... all over again.

Quote

A good idea, but perhaps, a little un-needed?
How many recent attacks have we had on civilian airlines via missile?
It could be useful if such a situation arises, but couldn't they be spending money on something better?
like fire-arms/weapons training for pilots on civillian airlines, to protect against hijacking.

I don't have the exact number on me, but its significant enough that Israel has already equipped planes with the system. Several planes have been shot down in the past decade or so.

[Wizard]

AllStarZ, on 7 Jan 2008, 22:17, said:

Wizard, on 7 Jan 2008, 18:11, said:

Hence the old term violence begets violence!

No... Even peace begets violence.

That is taking a point a touch to far.

I am merely stating that by equiping these planes with anti-missle defences, those that target the planes will come up with alternatives, or more sophisticated ways to shoot them down. The spiral continues. It would be better suited to spend the time and money to prevent them shooting it down in the first place. Take away the reason to shoot it down. The concepts of developing systems to protect against whatever, have shown through history that we just develop others ways around that.

[Whitey]

Well, unguided rockets and assault rifles have never proved effective in taking down an airliner. What alternative are you talking about? I can't see any that would be harder to stop.

[Short Stuff]

I saw this in the news this morning, and what instantly came to mind was..."Are we prepareing for war?" Because, seriously...The need for this kind of defence is only needed in certain parts of the world...even there its very rare to have it happen...So what put this in people mind? Is there really a bigger war comeing?

But meh, I saw the cost of a venture like that and shut off the T.V.

[Alias]

Think of how many starving children you could feed with the money wasted by this...

[Short Stuff]

Well 11 Billion dollers...Ya, thats a lot of children, that 11 billion Doller Menu Items

[Whitey]

None, because it is a free market economy, and investors wouldn't put that money toward starving children in the first place.

[AllStarZ]

But think of your economy at the moment. The 11 billion dollars could go a long way towards reducing dependence on oil, which also funds terrorists and puts US assets in danger. It could also boost your economy after the several setbacks it sustained over the course of the first few years of the millenium.

Edited by AllStarZ, 08 January 2008 - 06:31.

[Short Stuff]

Yes, but sadly we cant do sh-t about it...That money is in the hands of the Govt...Id love to do something about it, but im only 16. That and even if I was of age to vote. 1 vote out of a few million isnt gonna change anything.

Edited by Short Stuff, 08 January 2008 - 06:35.

[Overdose]

I would say something about that but I really don't want to get into politics again.

[Foxhound]

AllStarZ, on 8 Jan 2008, 1:30, said:

But think of your economy at the moment. The 11 billion dollars could go a long way towards reducing dependence on oil, which also funds terrorists and puts US assets in danger. It could also boost your economy after the several setbacks it sustained over the course of the first few years of the millenium.

Do you really think the average American has the power to or even cares about that?