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 : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jhild who wrote (459)	9/12/2001 12:05:41 PM
From: XenaLives	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27666

I still think my idea has merit - the advantage is that the ID of these people would be known only to the airline and they would look just like other passengers. Certainally the knowledge that several passengers trained to defend just as the hijackers are trained to destroy would be a deterrent.

To: jhild who wrote (459)	9/12/2001 12:09:54 PM
From: George Papadopoulos	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27666

>I saw that the reported method of gaining access was to start killing the crew and passengers until they opened the cockpit door. This was well planned and tactically successful. This kind of assault is difficult to defense I think. Well, I agree. news.independent.co.uk No shield could stop it. So what of 'Star Wars' now? Defence By Stephen Castle in Brussels 12 September 2001 Yesterday's attacks on New York and Washington provided deadly proof of the power and sophistication of the world's most determined terrorists. But it also illustrated how America's defence and security establishment has focused on the wrong strategy. Since taking office, President George Bush has given enthusiastic backing to the pet project of the the Pentagon hawks who see the solution to American's security problems in a missile defence shield. Only this, the Pentagon has insisted, can guarantee US security in the modern world where rogue states may want to wage war on America. How wrong they look even before the first prototype of the American missile shield has been conceived. Once the dream of Ronald Reagan, pioneer of "star wars" defences, the US defence élite have modified down their plans, which now focus around ways of tracking and destroying inter-ballistic missiles before they reach their targets. The fine detail of how this can be done has yet to be resolved although the latest thinking appears to revolve more around a system that could intercept missiles in their "boost phase", soon after launch as they are moving comparatively slowly. Once tracked, the hostile enemy missile could be destroyed by a weapon fired from land, air or a submarine. While unsure about the technology, US policy makers insist that only such a system can provide the vital defence against the "rogue states" such as North Korea or Iraq. The proposals have provoked the anger of Russia, which resents President Bush's determination to rip up the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty unilaterally. China too argues that the policy, pressed by the hardline Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, will result in a new arms race. In Nato the proposals have produced discord, with France hostile and Germany lukewarm. Even in Britain, where Tony Blair has given support to Mr Bush, the policy is a political timebomb. In the United States itself there are huge doubts about the technical feasibility of the "son of Star Wars" project, because of a series of inconclusive tests. There are political objections too, with the Democrats threatening to block the necessary legislation. The events of yesterday prove that this massive diplomatic gamble is ultimately fruitless, as well as being extremely costly both in financial and in political terms. Opponents of the Missile Defence Scheme have always argued that, even if it can be made to work, it gives no protection against a more likely form of attack: international terrorism. Within Nato, where the issue has been highly contentious, America has insisted to its allies that there is a potential threat from rogue states and that this must be studied. But after the demolition of New York's twin towers by a civilian airline, apparently piloted by suicide bombers, and the devastating and almost simultaneous attack on the Pentagon in Washington, the shape of the international security threat suddenly looks rather different.