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: Karen Lawrence who wrote (58812)	11/25/2002 4:29:03 PM
From: aladin	Respond to of 281500

Karen, C2: There is no defense against all possible attacks. This system looks good against some kinds of small anti-aircraft missles, but not all. John@stillwishmyairlinehadthem.com

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (58812)	11/25/2002 4:40:09 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Unless things are happening that are unknown to us, it seems that the airlines are being incredibly short-sighted about this. It will cost a lot more in court judgments and settlements should an airliner be successfully attacked with a shoulder fired weapon than the cost of installing the defenses. As things stand, even laymen like us know of the availability of the defenses. How is an airline exec. going to sound on the witness stand when he is asked about why his airline did not install ECMs after 9/11? I suppose they believe that bankruptcy court is cheaper even than the ECMs.