There are countermeasures to the smuggling of weapons onto airlines. Are they perfect? No. But the destruction of an airline is not as easy as you say - otherwise we would have a constant rain of jets falling. The people that are fighting the US have ample amounts of hate and would use any method possible to attack the airliners.
As to eliminating the passengers on the ground or at the airport - I'm a bit lost on that one. Are you saying chemical or bio weapons? Or direct attack? Or something else? Neither is easy or foolproof, even with the stellar airport security currently in place.
The biggest change to the environment is that the average people fight back, instead of letting the terrorists push them around, so the terrorists have a much more difficult time of perpetrating their crimes.
>
Then why don't they already have them? First, purchasing them is not risk-free or cheap - It takes a large amount of money to purchase even one (remember the seller's market) and the other parties (US, UK, etc) who don't want you to get one will attempt to dupe you, grabbing your operative and cash.
Also, you are limited to purchasing from people that are _sure_ 1) You are not a foreign goverment trying to gain proof that they are selling nukes and 2)that you are not going to use the nuke against _them_. The paranoia of the states that would sell nukes is a factor in all dealings with them.
Add onto this is that the need for a reliable nuclear weapon and a delivery system. Suitcase nukes are a good item, but the real supplier of those would be the US or UK - they are highly complex items that require high-tech maintenance and manufacturing. The cruder nuclear weapons are large, bulky, and worst of all, not 100% reliable. This will be especially bad from the nukes held by people with zero money. So either you buy lots of nukes (multiply above problems) or hope the one you bought goes off.
Now you need to use it before the nuke 'goes bad' - they do have a shelf life, and worse of all, don't have an easy way to tell if they are unuseable. So you have to rush to a target, instead of relying on the perfect opportunity to drop in your lap. Time is now against you, which will affect your success, secrecy, and effectiveness.
>
Heck with 'traditional view'. After 9/11 and Afghanistan, countries are having to be careful f what groups they shelter do, even if not in their name. They realize that _they_ will be held accountable, and a failed nuclear attack is only better in that the coming attack won't be fueled by rage. Without the tacit support of host nations, moving nukes around becomes dicey at best.
*Apologies for the next, as we're getting into the politics, which I was tring to avoid, but if it needs to be addressed*
I'm sorry - I don't find a lot of awe from people willing to die. Japan in WWII had a large group of people willing to do so, and they still lost. Yes, initally the kamakazies did quite a bit of damage, but our strategies and tactics changed to limit their effectiveness. They were not able to destroy their enemies, because the US had (and has) an immense strength in depth. The US can take these attacks and continue forward. The non-conventional forces cannot afford equal defeats. This disparity in constitution (please pardon the pun) is why the attacking groups will be adverse to too many risks.
The cry to the other people's plight also doesn't do much for me. Their condition is caused by their govermental systems, and they have allowed their goverments to exist. I don't buy the 'US is always at fault' - the people are accountable for the system that they have. History has proven no amount of monetary aid will raise these countries up-it disappears into a corrupt pit. The only effective aid has been aid with requirements and 'hooks', which despotic regimes (surprise) refuse - they need to keep their population in line and focus the hatred of the people at something, normally the US. The argument that they have nothing to lose reinforces the need to spend more in defense, especially if there is not a current way of protecing yourself from a particular type of attack. The attacker will attack no matter what, so why not be able to blunt their attack and then respond?
Conversion of the US defense dollars into aid will make an attack more likely, by stregthening the attacker, by encouraging the rogue states (by a lack of consequences from their behavior), and by weaking the US's defenses.
Avoiding the political firestorm comparing socialism, the effectiveness of giving away 'aid' to represive regimes, and past allies/enemies, I just find the 3 statements are disconnected from each other in their reasoning. I feel your other points are also valueless and lacking a understanding of history, but don't want to get into a long argument of "US did this", "It would help the people" , etc... I'm just wanting to focus on the 3 bullet points that you use to dismiss the laser system and launch into a geopolitical tirade.
First, equating knives to nuclear weapons is silly. 9/11 happened because the airline industry was taught since the 1970's to not fight back against terrorists - basically, give control of the plane to the attackers. Look at the flight passengers have fought back on for examples. Without that, knives become a hand-to-hand weapon of limited use. Very few people kill dozens, much less thousands with knives.
Second, nuclear missles are not incredibly cheap. Especially if you factor in the secrecy requirement to purchase or create. Also consider the trained professionals to maintain them. nuclear weapons that 'might' work are worse than none. It's very hard to explain away an undetonated nuclear weapon in an opponent's city. "Uh, we really didn't mean it? How about a take back on that?" Not a good thing if fighting an opponent with known working nuclear weapons. If you need an example, see how much the US spends making sure that the arsenal actually works, or consider the thriving population of North Korea.
Third, the cost of the weapon being too expensive. That is relative. What does the weapon protect? My understanding was that the laser is a theater defense weapon to protect large unit deployments, like an corps. Compared to the corps, the 747 (or mutliples for 24/7 coverage) is cheap. The cost of the 747 is probably less than the combined cost of all of the kevlar helmets the troops wear.
The US rarely uses absolute cost to decide if a weapon should be used - instead, the US approach is to protect their forces as much as possible. This is for both force protection (keep your troops alive so they can fight) and PR (the home front doesn't understand casulties). The use of the system to defend cities would be in a limited sense during hostilities (like during tensions with North Korea) and not as a univeral umbrella over the entire U.S.
Slashdot Mirror
There are countermeasures to the smuggling of weapons onto airlines. Are they perfect? No. But the destruction of an airline is not as easy as you say - otherwise we would have a constant rain of jets falling. The people that are fighting the US have ample amounts of hate and would use any method possible to attack the airliners.
As to eliminating the passengers on the ground or at the airport - I'm a bit lost on that one. Are you saying chemical or bio weapons? Or direct attack? Or something else? Neither is easy or foolproof, even with the stellar airport security currently in place.
The biggest change to the environment is that the average people fight back, instead of letting the terrorists push them around, so the terrorists have a much more difficult time of perpetrating their crimes.
>
Then why don't they already have them? First, purchasing them is not risk-free or cheap - It takes a large amount of money to purchase even one (remember the seller's market) and the other parties (US, UK, etc) who don't want you to get one will attempt to dupe you, grabbing your operative and cash.
Also, you are limited to purchasing from people that are _sure_ 1) You are not a foreign goverment trying to gain proof that they are selling nukes and 2)that you are not going to use the nuke against _them_. The paranoia of the states that would sell nukes is a factor in all dealings with them.
Add onto this is that the need for a reliable nuclear weapon and a delivery system. Suitcase nukes are a good item, but the real supplier of those would be the US or UK - they are highly complex items that require high-tech maintenance and manufacturing. The cruder nuclear weapons are large, bulky, and worst of all, not 100% reliable. This will be especially bad from the nukes held by people with zero money. So either you buy lots of nukes (multiply above problems) or hope the one you bought goes off.
Now you need to use it before the nuke 'goes bad' - they do have a shelf life, and worse of all, don't have an easy way to tell if they are unuseable. So you have to rush to a target, instead of relying on the perfect opportunity to drop in your lap. Time is now against you, which will affect your success, secrecy, and effectiveness.
>
Heck with 'traditional view'. After 9/11 and Afghanistan, countries are having to be careful f what groups they shelter do, even if not in their name. They realize that _they_ will be held accountable, and a failed nuclear attack is only better in that the coming attack won't be fueled by rage. Without the tacit support of host nations, moving nukes around becomes dicey at best.
*Apologies for the next, as we're getting into the politics, which I was tring to avoid, but if it needs to be addressed*
I'm sorry - I don't find a lot of awe from people willing to die. Japan in WWII had a large group of people willing to do so, and they still lost. Yes, initally the kamakazies did quite a bit of damage, but our strategies and tactics changed to limit their effectiveness. They were not able to destroy their enemies, because the US had (and has) an immense strength in depth. The US can take these attacks and continue forward. The non-conventional forces cannot afford equal defeats. This disparity in constitution (please pardon the pun) is why the attacking groups will be adverse to too many risks.
The cry to the other people's plight also doesn't do much for me. Their condition is caused by their govermental systems, and they have allowed their goverments to exist. I don't buy the 'US is always at fault' - the people are accountable for the system that they have. History has proven no amount of monetary aid will raise these countries up-it disappears into a corrupt pit. The only effective aid has been aid with requirements and 'hooks', which despotic regimes (surprise) refuse - they need to keep their population in line and focus the hatred of the people at something, normally the US.
The argument that they have nothing to lose reinforces the need to spend more in defense, especially if there is not a current way of protecing yourself from a particular type of attack. The attacker will attack no matter what, so why not be able to blunt their attack and then respond?
Conversion of the US defense dollars into aid will make an attack more likely, by stregthening the attacker, by encouraging the rogue states (by a lack of consequences from their behavior), and by weaking the US's defenses.
Avoiding the political firestorm comparing socialism, the effectiveness of giving away 'aid' to represive regimes, and past allies/enemies, I just find the 3 statements are disconnected from each other in their reasoning. I feel your other points are also valueless and lacking a understanding of history, but don't want to get into a long argument of "US did this", "It would help the people" , etc... I'm just wanting to focus on the 3 bullet points that you use to dismiss the laser system and launch into a geopolitical tirade.
First, equating knives to nuclear weapons is silly. 9/11 happened because the airline industry was taught since the 1970's to not fight back against terrorists - basically, give control of the plane to the attackers. Look at the flight passengers have fought back on for examples. Without that, knives become a hand-to-hand weapon of limited use. Very few people kill dozens, much less thousands with knives.
Second, nuclear missles are not incredibly cheap. Especially if you factor in the secrecy requirement to purchase or create. Also consider the trained professionals to maintain them. nuclear weapons that 'might' work are worse than none. It's very hard to explain away an undetonated nuclear weapon in an opponent's city. "Uh, we really didn't mean it? How about a take back on that?" Not a good thing if fighting an opponent with known working nuclear weapons. If you need an example, see how much the US spends making sure that the arsenal actually works, or consider the thriving population of North Korea.
Third, the cost of the weapon being too expensive. That is relative. What does the weapon protect? My understanding was that the laser is a theater defense weapon to protect large unit deployments, like an corps. Compared to the corps, the 747 (or mutliples for 24/7 coverage) is cheap. The cost of the 747 is probably less than the combined cost of all of the kevlar helmets the troops wear.
The US rarely uses absolute cost to decide if a weapon should be used - instead, the US approach is to protect their forces as much as possible. This is for both force protection (keep your troops alive so they can fight) and PR (the home front doesn't understand casulties). The use of the system to defend cities would be in a limited sense during hostilities (like during tensions with North Korea) and not as a univeral umbrella over the entire U.S.