Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Missile Defenses For Commercial Jets

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the asymetrical-warfare dept.

The AP reports that the first anti-missile defense system has been installed for testing on a commercial jet, a FedEx cargo carrier. The system is intended to detect the launch of a shoulder-fired missile at takeoff or landing, and disable the missile with a laser beam. Sen. Barbara Baxter (D-California) is one of the supporters of the system. She and other members of Congress are hoping to equip all US commercial passenger liners with this system in 20 years, at a cost of billions of dollars. Is this good common sense or the costly future of a society hobbled by fear of terrorism?

5 of 594 comments (clear)

  1. Brilliant! by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The system is intended to detect the launch of a shoulder-fired missile at takeoff or landing, and disable the missile with a laser beam.

    What a great idea! Now when the terrorists eventually take over another round of planes, they can effectively block missiles intended to shoot them down before reaching sensitive targets.


    How about if next, we equip subway cars with nuclear self-destruct devices so terrorists can't use them to make their speedy getaways?

  2. Need? by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just out of curiosity, how many commercial airliners in the US have been shot down with shoulder fired missiles? I haven't had any luck trying to find an instance in Google.

    I could see a system like this for a plane that has to fly over Iraq or South Africa, but inside of the US/Canada/Europe/Australia/Asia it doesn't seem to be necessary, worse, a system like this is probably going to require massive power and have considerable complexity. Highly complex pieces of equipment are liable to malfunction at some point and possibly even cause a crash.

    No, installing something like this in every airplane in the US fleet is just not realistic. Having it as an option for people who have to fly near areas where terrorists have shoulder fired missiles and a grudge against the west is good though.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  3. Re:How about by solevita · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because by selling both the cause and the remedy, you get to profit twice! Happy days.

  4. Re:Anyone know by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is where the slashdot moderation system breaks down. Currently the comment is "80% funny, 10% overrated, 10% troll". It is at +5, but I'm going to lose two karma for it anyway.

    And before anyone responds with "But smart-ass comments like yours don't enhance the discussion", Just set Funny to be -5 for you. Problem solved. Or grow a sense of humor.

  5. Re:Anyone know by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Terrorists aren't dumb, but we keep acting like they are. They know they can't rush an aircraft with just a handful of boxcutters: the passengers would turn on them and tear them limb from limb. 9/11 only worked because of the element of surprise, it wouldn't work again. Yet the government keeps preparing ways to keep us safe from another 9/11 attack. Likewise, why are they going to bother going after aircraft when so many easy targets are available?


    Terrorists will just attack somewhere else. The most obvious target is mass transit. Leave a bunch of bombs on the New York Subway, just like they did with the trains in Madrid- that would probably be a lot easier than smuggling a Stinger missile into the US. Or plant an IED on the Northwest Corridor and wait for a packed Acela train to go over it. Plant a limpet mine on the bottom of a ferry- if you can sink it fast enough you could kill a few hundred people.

    It's all just a show: most of the security efforts I've seen in place do comparatively little to make anyone safer, they're just designed to make us *feel* safer. They're not security, they're a security blanket.