> 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.
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.
