War.... (Historical: 9/11 discussion thread)

[Puke]

Geo is right. its not that we didnt see this coming, its that you cant do things to prevent this. what, eliminate airspace over cities? right. institute extremeist security policies at airports? thats giving into terrorism. my biggest complaint is 'why the heck dont we have an armed skycop on every single plane?' oooh, it costs money, and theres some sort of money shortage in America? give me a break! tightwads.

and you want SAM sites around the capitol? you dont think we have them? you dont think we have them in New York City? what exactly do you want them to do? shoot down every airliner not on a preapproved flight plan? thats really brilliant. It like the bombing of the USS Cole, its not that our port security sucks. we have guys patroling the deck with sidearms when the boat is at port. BUT, when its at a FRIENDLY port, those guns are UNLOADED because the risk of causing a political incident outweighs the risk to the boat. sam sites.. sheesh. that would make it safer to travel

[golf_prez]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puke:
Geo is right. its not that we didnt see this coming, its that you cant do things to prevent this.

---

Democracy's greatest strength is our individual rights, which turns out to be our biggest weakness against those who wish to harm us.

[Argh]

<lol> Alpha, I think that a Palestinian would point at the thousands of their dead and maimed who were shot with American bullets during any argument about moral culpability, but I digress. . .

We have been hounding Bin Ladin, but he's like Batman. . . he's rich, extraordinarily intelligent, and well-connected politically. The guy has a finger in a lotta people's plots, and he was given sanctuary by the Taliban precisely because he's a dangerous man. I'm sure one or several of the factions there thought that having him around would discourage other nations from butting into their private civil war

Anyhow, I feel sorry for the Afgani people, because they're likely to get bombed again, and this time by their former allies. They have had the worst luck in the world, set as they are between the grumbling giant of Russia, the plots and terror of Iran, and the squabbles between India and Pakistan. The land is some of the most barren on Earth, and the people are extremely poor. . . the only things they own that are generally worth much are weapons and goats- see map at
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ok/af/map.html

To sum up. . . the Taliban continue to deny his culpability in this horrific crime, and no one has had the balls to step forward and claim it.

Whenever I think seriously about the worst-case scenarios that could come out of this. . . I think about a terrorist cell whose members have been briefed to perform this one task. . . and then the other cells disappear into thin air. If we cannot establish a real tie to a real group, we'll probably make one up :P

So. . . we have long wait ahead of us, folks. I think that whatever's coming next, whether it's a declaration of war on a sovereign state, diplomacy or sanctions. . . it will not occur for at least 2 months, and probably longer.

[Solar]

I do agree that those responsible, and terrorists everywhere, need to be punished and prevented from ever hurting us again.

As far as preventing goes...

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, how possible is it for there to be some sort of remote control system that could take over the controls of an airliner if it deviated too far from it's flight plan and didn't respond to radio communication? I'm envisioning something much like a flight simulator that they use to train pilots. In the event of an emergency, the remote control module at the nearest airport would over-ride the plane's controls, and pilots on the ground would land the jet safely.

As far as I am aware, the technology is there. Of course, I'm just an average joe, there may be reasons why this isn't possible.
Maybe I live too much in a fantasy world, but I'm a firm believer in technology as a deterrent to crime.

I agree with Puke that money should be no object. What is money compared to human lives? I'd like to see armed skycops on every flight too.

Sorry if I have offended anyone, or wind up offending anyone now. That's not my heart.
Like everyone else in the nation, I'm still in shock right now.

Solar

[dmm]

Maybe airliner pilots should be locked in their (bullet-proof) cabin at the airport, and not allowed out until they land. Terrorists would need explosives to gain access to the controls. (As part of our continuing efforts to "establish dialogue" with disaffected Groups, run-of-the-mill hijackers could still communicate demands via the intercom.)

[Hotfoot]

Solar: It sounds like a nice idea, but it's impractical and downright dangerous. The second you take control away from the pilot in an emergency situation and hand it over to a computer, you've more than likely doomed them all. And it would make terrorism even easier. Terrorists wouldn't need suicide squads to hijack a plane a slam it into a target, they could just take control from a distance and do the same thing while sipping an mocha latte. Set up an alarm system, perhaps, if pilots don't enter a specific code every so often, or fail some other check-in requirement. And without the code, the plane sends out a distress call and locks itself at a specific altitude until the disarm code is entered (essentially giving it the all clear). That way control remains in the hands of the pilot, not the terrorists or a computer. And so long as the controls are locked, the terrorists wouldn't be able to pull off anything like they did yesterday.

Also, sealing the cockpit from the rest of the plane might help, but what about putting canisters of knockout gas into the ventilation systems? Something colorless and odorless, that would knock out the terrorists (and the passengers) while the pilots make an emergency landing at the nearest airport where police would be waiting to pick up the KO'd terrorists. No fuss, no muss, so long as the cockpit is seperated by an airtight seal, that is.

[geoschmo]

Aircops aren't a viable deterant to what happened yesterday.

Put aside for the moment that bullets and pressurized aircraft cabins don't exactly mix. There is a reason they call it "explosive decompression" afterall.

Why do you think the terroists used knives instead of guns? I can tell you it wasn't because guns are harder to get past airport security, because they aren't. They couldn't risk having a firefight bring down a plane without accomplishing their mission first.

Now you could have aircops armed with mace and tazers I suppose. But one aircop isn't going to stop a team of hijackers except in the movies. So unless you wan't to have a dozen aircops on every airplane, forget that idea.

Sleeping gas is an intriguing idea. But the risk of an accident where the crew is incapacitated along with the passengers is kind of overwhelming no?

Geoschmo