58 replies to this topic

[Wizard]

Foxhound, on 8 Jan 2008, 8:13, said:

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?

To me that is a bigger problem then whether to install counter measures on commercial jetliners.

[Dauth]

And we drift into politics again.

Now this will probably get me a slap on the wrists but it's got to be said.

If you don't do politics; you don't do anything.

Whoever wins the US presendential election will have consequences for everyone, not the populus of the US, not just US and Europe, everyone.

As I said in my first post, the government's job is to protect the population, if this protects the population it's worth the 11bn, given how much it costs the UK to be in Iraq, I bet it costs the US 10 times more, 11bn isn't a drip in that ocean.

[Wizard]

You are right, this is a sticy topic to avoid politics on. Though it wasn't really my intention to bring it up.

@ Topic The idea of having counter measures on commercial airliners to me is both too expensive a proposition and very unsettling. The current risks of flying are more than enough to put the fear of God into some people, imagine what it will feel like knowing they have a device strapped to the bottom of their plane capable of downing a surface to air missle!!!!

You take a risk when you travel regardless, and as has already been pointed out, is much safer than 100+ years ago. This seems like a pointless exercise unless it's the defence contractors dying wish for us to have anti-missle systems on our pedal bikes before the stablisers have come off. This is a paradoxical solution as it will just mean terrorists aquire new technologies, developed by rival contractors to by pass the existing, and no doubt short lived life spans of the counter measures being tested!

[Overdose]

Wouldn't it be better to invest 11bln in more ways to avoid accidents like air collisions among others?

It's like the oldest scenario in the book. Someone spends 1 million buck on a futuristic, cutting edge and next-gen rat trap of doom while you could buy a cat for 50 bucks.

[Whitey]

But there are no missile-eating cats now are there? Unless you have a better proposition (and a guy in a jeep with a gun is NOT a better proposition) for anti-missile defense/prevention that is cheaper and more effective, then you ought not to criticize the countermeasures.

[Wizard]

There is a much better proposition Boidy but it's a political one. It would solve about a zillion other problems along with whether a commercial airliner is gunned down or not.

[Whitey]

Or so it might seem, on the surface. You must consider the numerous faults that such a proposition carries in the political arena. And while the problems may not be as numerous, they would bear a lot more weight.

[Wizard]

Agreed. But back on topic, I just can't see, based on the probability ratio, that this money can't be better spent elsewhere tbh. Plus I can not get it out of my head that by investing in these systems that we/them/governments etc are not just fanning the flames of the situation by giving BAE systems competitors something new to research.

[Whitey]

I'd honestly rather be safe than sorry. I might regret giving alms to the poor because I may end up there one day. But to pay for something that will ultimately help protect me? There's no better investment than that (aside from Google when it first started up, damn, some must have made a fortune).