Shoulder-fired missiles

[Snoopy58]

> I agree with Mar... stop funding this maddness. Change our foreign policy. Stop vilifying different cultures.

Any culture that approves of mass murder NEEDS and DESERVES to be vilified. To give tacit approval through silence is utter cowardice. The Palestinian terrorists regularly blow up Israeli civilians, which is every bit as barbaric as the attacks on the WTC a year ago. Israel deserves every bit of support we give them, and more besides.

If you've always opposed US support of Israel, I disagree with you, but so be it. Just don't pretend that the recent events are what drive your conclusion or should drive anyone else in that direction. On the other hand, if you HAVE recently decided that we need to change our foreign policy, then the terrorists have successfully convinced you.

Good thing President Bush has more guts than that.

BTW, the ideal target for an older MANPAD like the SA-7 would be an older, low-bypass jet engine. The high bypass fans on the really big iron these days have so much cool air mixing with the hot exhaust that their signature will be less than what a JT8D or something similar would put out.

From a damage standpoint, the small warhead can probably take out an engine & damage whatever is close by, but obviously losing one engine at a couple hundred feet shouldn't bring down any airliner by itself. My concern would be on a jet like an older DC9, where you have both engines close together, producing essentially a single heat source for the seeker to track, and somewhat vulnerable to blast from the missile and shrapnel from a disintegrating turbine on the other engine.

The psychological damage of "a domestic airliner shot down" would be far beyond the actual numbers of people involved. Nobody would rely on "the safety of a high bypass turbofan mounted on the wing" in the midst of the hysteria... it would be an awful shock to the airline industry.

 

[mar]

Tacit approval of "evil-doers"

Snoopdog--My good man. You're loosing this argument because you're falling back into useless rhetoric:

"Any culture that approves of mass murder NEEDS and DESERVES to be vilified. To give tacit approval through silence is utter cowardice."

You mean, like our silence towards the Russians and Chechnya;

or, like our silence towards China and Taiwan?

Maybe you mean the deafening silence of the US Govt towards the Mexican govt and the state of Chiapas?

Or the Chilean govt and the 'disappeared ones'?

Or the Chinese govt (again!) and Tibet?

Let's see there's also Iraq and Kurds (and don't kid yourself here, that's not why we're going there. Back when Iraq was the good guy and Iran was the bad guy America couldn't give two fistfulls about the Kurdish people.)

So you get my point. You see, there's a lot of misery to go around.

It's always problematic to perch yourself on top of really abstract concepts with no idea how it'll play out in the real world.

Israel is *hardly* the victim here. They just happen to be centrally located in a very strategic part of the world right now and are thus the beneficiaries of our tax dollars.

How lovely for them the Holy Land wasn't located in Antarctica.

Imagine what sort of things could happen in your state if the Federal govt literally threw billions of dollars in your direction every year.

Oh nevermind, that might resemble a socialist utopia, with goddless commies and all of that.

Yes, I think I'd much rather send all of that money to a foreign country that survives by pushing people out.

Nice. Real nice.

 

[Snoopy58]

You're right, Mar, there's lots of evil in the world, and we can't fix it all. Doesn't mean it's all therefore morally equivalent.

As for your examples, the Chechyn terrorists wanted to get attention by kidnapping a theater full of people -- whom they would have murdered. We condemned them. The Russians did what they thought best to save as many of the hostages as they could. Not pretty, nor perfect, but a different league from the evil that the terrorists perpetrated. What would you have had us do?

Taiwan/China... don't recall either country hijacking aircraft & killing thousands of innocent Americans lately. Tibet neither. Saints? Nope, not a bit. Making mass murder of civilians their chosen instrument of national policy? No.

Mexico/Chiapas... same deal. Bad stuff going on there (and about a zillion other places you can name), you bet. But nothing like the daily homicide bombings that the palestinian terrorists carry out, nor the mass murder of 9/11/01.

Or Iraq and the Kurds... hmmm, we set up the northern no-fly zone to protect those Kurds, iirc. Or does ANY instance of US inaction or weak response at any point in recent history require that we ignore EVERY atrocity now?

We can't help everybody out, but that fact doesn't mean we abandon our friends (i.e. Israel) who are fighting the same terrorist evils that we are. And we darned sure don't abandon them BECAUSE of the terrorist evils, as Mar & doog would have us do.

 

[chawbein]

D@mned, Dirty Brits....

 

[PilotoHalcon]

Subject: Subject: Should there be racial profiling
in airport
screenings?

Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the
following Multiple
Choice
test. (The events are actual cuts from past history.
They actually
happened.
Do you remember?)

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were
kidnapped and massacred
by:

a. Olga Korbut
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over
by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

3. During the 1980's, a number of Americans were
kidnapped in Lebanon
by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was
blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

5. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was
hijacked and a 70 year old
American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard
in his wheelchair
by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

6. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens,
and a U.S. Navy diver
trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindbergh
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

8. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the
first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's
women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two
were used as missiles
to
take out the World Trade Center and of the remaining
two, one crashed
into
the US Pentagon and the other was diverted to a
crash by the passengers.
Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wile E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer
Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

11. In 2002, the United States fought a war in
Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

12. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and
murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of
17 and 40

Nope, .....I really don't see a pattern here to
justify racial
profiling,
do
you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone,
particularly fanatics
intent
on killing us, airport security screeners will no
longer be allowed to
profile certain people. They must conduct random
searches of 80-year-old
women, little kids, airline
pilots with proper identification, Secret Service
agents who are members
of
the President's security detail, 85-year old
Congressmen with metal
hips,
and Medal of Honor winning former Governors.



As the writer of the award winning story Forrest
Gump so aptly put it,
"Stupid is as stupid does!"

 

[Typhoon1244]

Huh? Who'd bother shooting at a little CRJ anyways?

Are you kidding? What's a terrorist's purpose? To generate terror.

Nobody's surprised when an intercontinental jumbo-jet is target by a terrorist group...but can you imagine what would happen if ATR's and RJ's started blowing up on the way to little out-of-the-way cities? Nobody would feel safe getting on a U.S. airliner anywhere!

If Al Queda ever decides to target smaller domestic airliners, our entire industry is in deep, deep trouble.

P.S. "Little" CRJ? C'mon, let's be more mature than that!

 

[Tref]

I think that anyone who truly believes that profiling is the answer needs to spend a few hours downtown OKC.

As far as the missles go... Don't worry, it'd only hurt for a second.

 

[PilotoHalcon]

Profiling is not THE answer but it is a leap in the right direction. And your point it well taken.
j

 

[doog]

Good post PilotoHalcon -

I agree, profiling for terorists is a good idea. I imagine a comprehensive database and algorythms would help greatly in the hunt for terrorists. Muslim male 17-40 - lets do it, add em to the database. Lets also add in hard line christian fundamentalists such as Tim McVey, jaded X marine muslim converts such as the recent sniper.

My problem is with a policy that seems only to increase their numbers.

As for sticking up for our pals, I'm all for it. But as long as I see stupid Israeli policy lead to further stupid tit for tat violence, I will encourage our government not to follow the same policy.

 

[flywithastick]

hard line christian fundamentalists such as Tim McVey

don't believe he was a hard-line Christian fundamentalist. I believe his motive was revenge for the federal government's cold blooded killing of US citizens and others at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Several measures that would help in this situation, but IMO won't be seriously considered without another couple of NYC-class attacks.

racial and religous profiling

expulsion/deportation of non-citizens within the 17-40 male Muslum category

deport all illegal aliens

more extreme measures taken against surviving family members of terroists

control immigration

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by Tref
I think that anyone who truly believes that profiling is the answer needs to spend a few hours downtown OKC.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware OKC had been attacked by eight year old children and great-grandmothers on chemotherapy...both of which I've seen receiving additional screening.

I repeat: if this really is a war--and not George W.'s re-election campaign--then darn it, let's start treating it like one!

 

[Tref]

The point is that it's impossible to predict intent. Most people who looked at Timothy Mckvey's background information (the usual stuff) before the bombing would not have considered him a risk.

The other problem is this: If I was a terrorist and I knew I was going to be profiled and searched I would try and hide my weapon or explosives on someone I knew would not be searched. They might not even know I was doing it. Drug smugglers have been doing this to sneak drugs across the border for years. They hide a package on some retired couple's RV and then retrieve it on the other side. Why not do the same thing with a weapon or some explosives? Just because a traveller is not a terrorist doesn't necessarily mean they are not carrying a prohibited item.

These are the two practical reasons for applying the rules equally to everyone. We don't even have to get into whether or not profiling is "the right thing to do." The fact is that it creates larger holes in security than it fills.

 

[flywithastick]

If I was a terrorist and I knew I was going to be profiled and searched I would try and hide my weapon or explosives on someone I knew would not be searched. ...retrieve it on the other side.

How about controlling the borders and not allowing them to cross and pick up their packages.

Now talking about airport security, don't they still ask if you've been asked to carry anthing for someone else?!

Just because a traveller is not a terrorist doesn't necessarily mean they are not carrying a prohibited item.

How many people NOT a terrorist and carrying prohibited items will use the prohibited item to hijack or blow up a plane?

The fact is that it creates larger holes in security than it fills.

as opposed to random searches of non-Muslum old ladies and children?! This sounds like the same logic my local city manager used when he told me I couldn't have speed bumps installed on my street because they would actually "SPEED UP traffic".

 

[ceo_of_the_sofa]

Watch yer six, boyz...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Afghanistan

 

[EagleRJ]

"Stinger missiles lock onto their targets using a radar-guided system, making them more effective than heat-seeking missiles, which are easily foiled by decoy flares."

Whoops- looks like this reporter just stepped in some bovine doo doo.

It's no secret that just about every Afghan has a Stinger hanging over their fireplace. They are old enough, though, that it's likely they are no longer fully functional. There are newer systems available that we need to be concerned about, and there's evidence that some are already in the hands of terrorists.

 

[ShawnC]

"Stinger missiles lock onto their targets using a radar-guided system, making them more effective than heat-seeking missiles, which are easily foiled by decoy flares."

Whoops- looks like this reporter just stepped in some bovine doo doo.

It's no secret that just about every Afghan has a Stinger hanging over their fireplace. They are old enough, though, that it's likely they are no longer fully functional. There are newer systems available that we need to be concerned about, and there's evidence that some are already in the hands of terrorists.

Probally confusing it with the Sidewinder which I am told that the seeker head is aimed in conjunction with the radar system. What your radar is locked onto the Sidewinder will aim it's seeker head at to attempt to lock on to it.

 

[Tref]

How about controlling the borders and not allowing them to cross and pick up their packages.

Border security MUST be improved!

Now talking about airport security, don't they still ask if you've been asked to carry anthing for someone else?!

Actually they don't. I always thought it was a good idea just for passenger awareness, even though no one with criminal intent would likely fess up. You were just being facetious though, right?

How many people NOT a terrorist and carrying prohibited items will use the prohibited item to hijack or blow up a plane?

I suppose the simple answer is "none" because the moment they did one of those things they would be a terrorist. The point is that a terrorist could sneak a prohibited item on board by using an unsuspecting passenger, or an accomplice who doesn't fit the profile to get things past security. The passenger carrying the items could have little or nothing to do with any evil plans.

as opposed to random searches of non-Muslum old ladies and children?! This sounds like the same logic my local city manager used when he told me I couldn't have speed bumps installed on my street because they would actually "SPEED UP traffic".

For one thing, TSA does not conduct "random" searches. The TSA does "continuous" screening. What this means is that, when a screener is finished with a task they will simply select the next passenger or bag in line to conduct a search. (Assuming they do not have to resolve an alarm.) This makes the best use of the screeners' time and also prevents discrimination.

You'd have to be pretty carefull who you'd let through with less scrutiny considering that a non-Muslim youth stole a plane last year and flew it into a high rise and a non-Muslim university student tried to make a smiley face on the map of the USA by planting pipe bombs in people's mail boxes.

These are all reasons why the security checkpoint has to work like a big washing machine and remove all the prohibited items from all of the passengers. The minute you scrutinize one group too much, you neglect another. All passengers must be thoroughly screened.

The other thing is that some profiling is done before the passengers even reach the checkpoint. The difference is that race is not a parameter. Ever fly one-way or buy a ticket at the last minute and wonder why you're a screening selectee? There are many factors involved, but they are more objective than race or religion.

 

[flywithastick]

These are all reasons why the security checkpoint has to work like a big washing machine and remove all the prohibited items from all of the passengers. The minute you scrutinize one group too much, you neglect another. All passengers must be thoroughly screened.

good point. One thing these folks are good at is changing to exploit our weaknesses. We should be comprehensive and flexible in our efforts.

 

[JetPilot500]

It's all a question of odds. If a SA-7 hits a 747 in the number four engine, it could probably fly around like that all day. If the same missile hit my airplane (CRJ-200) in the APU, it'd probably blow the tail off.

For what it is worth...

A few years back in Africa, a Hawker Corporate Jet was hit by a SAM...not sure what kind.

It blew the engine off, but was safely landed after the incident. This plane is much smaller than a CRJ. I'm sure there are a lot of factors involved here, but I think you'd have a decent chance if you were hit.

Good Luck,
JetPilot500

 

[PilotoHalcon]

The SA7 never exploded. The impact took out the engine. This was from a Flight Safety class I was in several years ago.
j