SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Hawkmoon who wrote (33111)6/27/2002 4:54:59 AM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "Given that most geese present a larger "pattern" in comparison to a commercial jet flying at height, I'd wager you'll have more to worry about from the local fish and game authorities than the FAA or FBI... :0)"

I guess that in your universe, the terrorists are so stupid that they fire their antiaircraft missiles at animals instead of aircraft. Or maybe you live in a part of the world where birds are constantly flying around. Whatever. It seems to me that you're trying hard to get a dead horse to drag you around. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of residential districts in this country where the image of a 747 taking off fills the sky, and would be hard to miss with even an unguided rocket. There are plenty of US residential neighborhoods where conversation during take off is impossible, and glancing up will allow you to damn near count the rivets on the belly of a 747.

Re: "They used proximity fuzes due to their poor accuracy."

You're right that they had to build them big because they were inaccurate. The absence of accuracy was due to the electronics. That was 1952. This is 2002. If you want the "back of the envelope" calculations for modern accuracy, as compared to 1952 accuracy, I'm sure we can work something out. But why don't you just quit trying to prove that it's still hard to do something that was hard to do in 1952. The fact is that amateurs can make these devices fairly easily now.

-- Carl

P.S. I'm assuming that you retract your arguments to the effect that a home built antiaircraft missile, built with US amateur rocket technology, wouldn't have sufficient warhead weight to be dangerous to aircraft. (I.e. "But without the ability to carry a significant warhead, as well as the proximity fuzing technology, it's like my old fixed cat... He'd get himself all wound up and in position, but when he had the 'target' where he wanted it, he couldn't make an 'impact'" #reply-17640611 ) If so, good. That means that as soon as I teach you enough about control theory, or you park your car outside of LaGuardia and look up, you'll agree to the existence of the threat.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext