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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (10614)	4/6/2001 12:01:33 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I do know something about aerodynamics. Fighters are notoriously unstable when flying at the speed that a P-3 cruises at. Fighters are under control when flying past at high speed, not when pacing a larger, slow moving aircraft. I don't think any pilot of a fighter would intentionally ram another aircraft. Aircraft are made out of aluminum (not a great material for "ramming"). If we had the Chinese operating off our cost, their craft would constantly be badgered by our craft. If it was a military plane, I don't think you can use the word hostage in the ordinary and common usage of the word. They have not made any specific "demands" nor have they held them until such-and-such conditions have been met. Just to be even handed here, have we ever returned any stolen aircraft given to us by defectors? No. The defectors have a dubious right to stay (they have defected, a crime, and stolen military equipment to do it, another crime) but then we have absolutely NO claim on the equipment they used. This was military equipment being used on a military mission with a military intent.