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: John Carragher who wrote (59662)	12/3/2002 11:15:04 AM
From: FaultLine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

after three days the guys says you are competent enough to fire accurately A retired colonel was interviewed on our local Bay Area CBS affiliate this morning concerning the use of shoulder-fired rockets against passenger planes. His final remark was, "Of all the concerns the Homeland Security Agency needs to worry about this is not one them." Surprised? I was. Here are his reasons: -- The available missiles are very old Soviet models that are worthless. The only people for whom these rockets have any value are the world's arms dealers. The only person benefiting from the sale of a $50,000 rocket would be the seller. The probability of a hit is very small. -- The heat signature of a fighter is much, much more intense and concentrated. Passenger engines are very large and always run at low temperatures: basically being just large air pumps during takeoff. The probability of a hit is now even smaller. -- Even if an engine were to be hit, passenger planes are designed to easily fly with only one engine. The probability of destruction is nil. As I say, this surprised me, but if these ideas are true it certainly changes the discussion. --fl