Reply
Sat 16 Aug, 2003 08:27 am
While the feds have done a good job keeping terrorists from boarding planes since 9/11, the arrest of weapons dealer Hemant Lakhani highlights another danger aimed at air travelers - surface-to-air missiles. Here is a catastrophe waiting to happen.According to the Pentagon, between 1978 and 1998 there were 29 SAM attacks resulting in the deaths of more than 400 people worldwide. Most of the incidents happened in war-torn Africa, but don't be lulled into a sense of complacency. Some terrorism experts say the odds of a similar attack on U.S. soil are 50-50. Lakhani's arrest offers just more evidence that terrorists are determined to rain blood from U.S. skies.The American-British-Russian operation that captured Lakhani took 18 months. The 68-year-old British citizen of Indian descent told an FBI informant that he knew the weapon would be used against a jet in the U.S. - and he knew the havoc it would cause. "Make one explosion," Lakhani said in one of 150 taped conversations, "to shake the economy." And, might we add, the peace of mind of a world still jittery from 9/11.After Tuesday's arrest of Lakhani and two accomplices, the debate on how to protect airliners intensified. It would cost an estimated $10 billion to outfit all 6,800 U.S. commercial jets with anti-missile protection systems. One camp says that's a small price to pay. Another urges that Washington use the money and energy to bust up terror plots wherever they're being hatched and bring the would-be murderers to justice.This shouldn't be an either/or situation, folks. Both must be done. Our enemies are gunning for us. Their supply of weapons is plentiful. Congress reported that at the start of 2003, there were between 500,000 and 700,000 SAMs in existence - several thousand of them unaccounted for.The threat from shoulder-fired missiles has long been a concern in Washington - concern that was heightened in November, when Al Qaeda thugs tried to shoot down an Israeli jet in Kenya. They failed. But they haven't given up. On the very day Lakhani was nabbed near Newark Airport, Saudi Arabian authorities stopped an Al Qaeda plot to take out a British Airways jet.
Will It take the catastrophe of a commercial airliner being shot down to make this a priority?
Au 1929
Very relevant post----I absolutely agree that both must be done-----the economy is on very thin ice now and another major airline attack will severely hamper any chance of a quick recovery and might even deal it a mortal blow. The second anniversary of 9/11 will be a milestone and if bin Laden can't muster an all out attack then I believe it will send a signal to the world that we are severely disrupting their capability to mount another coordinated attack or a major attack of any kind. They very badly want to make another statement that we cannot stop them. I must believe that the world is winning the disruption battle but the death blow to the snake is still far off. I can only "hope" that they will forever be limited to hitting soft targets in Muslim countries where they continue to be shielded by Muslim supporters.
Protecting Commercial Aircraft
Much has been done to tighten aviation security in the United States since Sept. 11, including the hardening of cockpits, more meticulous passenger screening and the posting of armed marshals on many domestic flights. Yet dangers persist. That was highlighted last week by the F.B.I.'s arrest of a man who was charged with trying to sell a shoulder-fired missile to a bureau informant who posed as a terrorist wanting to down a commercial jetliner.
In an age of terrorism, Washington cannot afford to leave significant gaps in its efforts to protect commercial aviation. The threat from portable missiles is one such threat. Other risks, including lax cargo screening procedures, also require attention. Washington should identify the most pressing dangers and ensure that there is adequate financial help to meet them.
More than a thousand portable, heat-seeking missiles developed by the Russians and Americans are now floating around the world unaccounted for. They could be highly effective against passenger planes during takeoffs or landings if terrorists managed to launch them near airports. That happened in Kenya last November. Fortunately, the two missiles fired at an Israeli charter jet missed their target. The Bush administration has warned that further attempts are likely, especially in countries where airport security is poor.
Equipping the American passenger fleet with the kinds of antimissile protections now used by American military planes and some Israeli commercial flights would cost about $7 billion to $10 billion and could be accomplished quickly. Washington is now considering a plan for such protection, which includes flares, jamming devices and the scattering of metal debris as decoys, starting in 2006. That schedule should be advanced, with the added equipment phased in first on newly delivered aircraft, along with those flying the most vulnerable routes.
The costs can be partially subsidized by restoring the federal security tax on air travel, now temporarily suspended, at a slightly higher level. Though the prospect of rising fares does not thrill the airlines, they will be better served by a small spike in ticket prices than the downing of a commercial airliner, an event likely to throw the industry into a new tailspin.
I see problems. These shoulder fired SAMs tend to be heat seekers, so cannot be detected by their radar emmisions. Are airliners going to be equiped with an electronics suite like the F-15? There is not only a cost issue here, this is some fairly classified stuff to toss into every commercial airliner.
I think there should be the option to pay for tickets to ride on airliners that are equipped or not. Pay an extra few hundred and you can shake less on the plane.
I personally would like to never pay for this, and hope that only those who are worried about it do.
In other words, put your money where your mouth is. Short term parking at the airport is cheap and close. Long term is way cheaper and less convienent.
I am totally ambivalent on this issue. On the one hand, it would be comforting to know that the plane on which I am travelling is secure against missles.
On the other hand, we have a finite amount of money to spend. It seems to me that spending in on rooting out the terrorists would be much more productive, in the long run. We can't live out our lives in "bomb shelters"!
Should an American airliner be shot down with a sizable loss of life IMO cost will become irrelevant? Politicians will be running for cover and the blame game will begin. The cost is estimated to be $10 billion. Consider that is cost of 2 1/2 months of US operations in Iraq. True we can't live our lives in bomb shelters but we most certainly do whatever we can to protect ourselves.
But do you want to be a passenger on an Airbus that is jinking madly while the pilot punches out chaff and flares? What is next, weapons pylons with HARM missiles attached? I can see it now: "United announces the beginning of Wild Weasel service to hawaii."
hobitbob
I want whatever it takes to protect the aircraft. All that effort expended to assure that terrorists do not board our aircraft is meaningless if it can be brought down with a missile
60 Minutes is re-running a report on the threat to commercial a/c from slaams tonight. Should be good. (especially since PBS is pledge driving, and has replaced "Globe Trekker" with a Billy graham crusade. Bllleeeecchhh!!!!
)
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace