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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (48830)	10/2/2002 2:10:00 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

No. 4 isn't a puzzle, because their goal wasn't simply to blow up the planes but rather to use them as weapons. No. 5 is indeed a puzzle, but even more so with respect to Israel than Afghanistan. I mean, it simply should not be too difficult to take out a plane landing or taking off at Ben Gurion airport, and the consequences of such an event on Israel--its economy, psychology, everything--would be unimaginable. So if you're a loony Palestinian terrorist, why not hit 'em where it would really hurt? I can come up with some possible answers, but none are really convincing. The result? that's the kind of scenario that would keep me up at night, if I were the type who was kept up by those kinds of things... tb@beafraid,beveryafraid.com

To: Bilow who wrote (48830)	10/3/2002 8:05:00 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

RPGs are not heat-seeking and have a very limited range. I doubt that they can do catastrophic damage to a large airliner which is landing or taking off even if the terrorist be lucky enough to actually hit it. It would be a low altitude event most pilots could probably handle. Shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons are heat seeking. Countermeasures exist. It would not surprise me at all if El Al equips all of its airliners with them, though I doubt the US carriers use them. They are available on private jets. awgnet.com I can easily foresee a successful missile attack on an American jetliner, then a required installation of the electronic countermeasure equipment. The popular discussion would be predictable: Why weren't all airliners outfitted with the devices if the threat was known?