Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RealMuLan who wrote (96900)	4/5/2001 10:41:46 AM
From: JohnG	Respond to of 152472

Yiwu. I take this to be an announced policy of intercepting incoming unidentified aircraft to protect the US from the risk that such aircraft might harm the US, be smuggling drugs, etc. "Retalitory action" does not mean that the US will shoot them down or damage them. It simply means that they will intercept, fly close, harass, advise that they are about to enter illegally, etc. This is the dangerous cat and mouse game where it would be helpful to have some private agreements between countries as th the rules in order to minimize the risk of accidents like the one that we discuss. For example, one rule might be that both partys agree that the intercepting fighters will not fly so close beneath the intruder as to make it impossible for the intruder to turn away from the direction of the country's airspace without causing a collision. What I am saying is that they will agree that the intercepting fighters will not try to force the intruder to violate the air space thus causing a international incident. Interception within 200 miles is necessary because a 600 MPH plane can cover the 200 miles in only 20 minutes thus giving the interceptors only a short time to scramble the interceptors and reach the possible intruder.