Shoulder-fired missiles

[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