This Won't Fly
Looks like playing good "D" isn't an option in the War on Terror:
Here's the problem in a nutshell: as soon as you come up with an effective defense against one form of terror, our enemies will find another.
We're a technological society. We like to think that for every problem, there's a gadget or three to solve it.
Our enemies are low-tech opportunists. They don't have airplanes, so they commandeer ours. They don't have tanks, so they load up a nutjob with bombs and have him walk into our rear areas.
The MSM's hysteria over shoulder-fired missiles is ridiculous. Number one, it's awfully hard to get this type of equipment in place unnoticed by somebody. That's why you don't find bad guys with this type of ordinance in the street except in the movies. Second, these things aren't easy to deploy. Aircraft move fast, even on landing approach. It's hard to hit them. The mujahedeen in Afghanistan brought down a decent number of Soviet helicopters, which a) move more slowly most of the time than airliners and b) they had lots of Stingers, which are quite good at bringing down aircraft.
Probability is small that al Qaeda is seriously attempting to down aircraft with shoulder-fired missiles. Even if they are, probability is small that they would be able to take a shot unmolested. Even if they did, probability is small that they would hit their target. Even if they did, the probability of destroying a large aircraft with one hit is certainly not 100 percent. Should we spend a lot of time worrying about this?
Let's say we should. We spend $11 B outfitting aircraft and training pilots. Hell, let's say the countermeasures are 100 percent effective. What then?
Al Qaeda moves onto Plan B, having done $11 B in damage to our economy.
There is no effective defense against a terrorist network based on small cells of dedicated nutjobs. There are too many targets to secure.
Let me pose another question:
Why aren't we worried about Nazi sabotage?
Why aren't we afraid of Soviet sleeper agents with suitcase nukes?
Why aren't we scrambling to secure our Pacific coastline against Imperial Japanese minisubs?
Because we destroyed those threats. They don't exist anymore. Their organizers are gone.
This is why the Iraq War is important. It is why eventual operations in Syria, Iran, and North Korea will be important. We must destroy the terror network to eliminate the threat.
If we're going to design new gadgets, how about ones that will smear fanatics along the walls of their caves?
WASHINGTON - Technology to guard airplanes against terrorist missiles is too expensive for commercial airlines and developers should work to come up with something more suitable "as rapidly as possible," a new report says.
Fitting the nation's 6,800 commercial jets with countermeasures against shoulder-fired missiles would cost an estimated $11 billion, with operating costs going up to $2.1 billion annually, said the RAND Corp. report.
The report noted that the federal government now spends about $4.4 billion annually on all transportation security.
Analysts who did the report questioned whether it was even possible to defend against such weapons, and whether in any case terrorists would simply find other ways and other weapons to attack jets.
Here's the problem in a nutshell: as soon as you come up with an effective defense against one form of terror, our enemies will find another.
We're a technological society. We like to think that for every problem, there's a gadget or three to solve it.
Our enemies are low-tech opportunists. They don't have airplanes, so they commandeer ours. They don't have tanks, so they load up a nutjob with bombs and have him walk into our rear areas.
The MSM's hysteria over shoulder-fired missiles is ridiculous. Number one, it's awfully hard to get this type of equipment in place unnoticed by somebody. That's why you don't find bad guys with this type of ordinance in the street except in the movies. Second, these things aren't easy to deploy. Aircraft move fast, even on landing approach. It's hard to hit them. The mujahedeen in Afghanistan brought down a decent number of Soviet helicopters, which a) move more slowly most of the time than airliners and b) they had lots of Stingers, which are quite good at bringing down aircraft.
Probability is small that al Qaeda is seriously attempting to down aircraft with shoulder-fired missiles. Even if they are, probability is small that they would be able to take a shot unmolested. Even if they did, probability is small that they would hit their target. Even if they did, the probability of destroying a large aircraft with one hit is certainly not 100 percent. Should we spend a lot of time worrying about this?
Let's say we should. We spend $11 B outfitting aircraft and training pilots. Hell, let's say the countermeasures are 100 percent effective. What then?
Al Qaeda moves onto Plan B, having done $11 B in damage to our economy.
There is no effective defense against a terrorist network based on small cells of dedicated nutjobs. There are too many targets to secure.
Let me pose another question:
Why aren't we worried about Nazi sabotage?
Why aren't we afraid of Soviet sleeper agents with suitcase nukes?
Why aren't we scrambling to secure our Pacific coastline against Imperial Japanese minisubs?
Because we destroyed those threats. They don't exist anymore. Their organizers are gone.
This is why the Iraq War is important. It is why eventual operations in Syria, Iran, and North Korea will be important. We must destroy the terror network to eliminate the threat.
If we're going to design new gadgets, how about ones that will smear fanatics along the walls of their caves?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home