Comments on: American Airlines Tests Anti-Missile Gear

Up To 3 Passenger-Carrying Jets To Get U.K. Defense Co.'s Laser Technology

[usayesterday]

Planning to prevent terrorism? Here are examples, some with logic and some without:

Preventing terrorism (with logic):

- SECURE BOTH OF OUR BORDERS COMPLETELY

- INSPECT EVERY SHIPPING CONTAINER BOUND FOR THE UNITED STATES

- SECURE THE PROPERTY AND A SIZABLE PERIMETER AROUND EVERY AIRPORT

Now, preventing terrorism (without logic):

- Allow pilots to carry guns into the cockpit

- Put expensive laser systems on airplanes to stop GUIDED missiles

So basically, if we, the American people want truly effective and comprehensive security measures against terrorist acts...

...just add logic!

(which is not possible with the current administration)

[usayesterday]

Well then, I think this demonstrates how absurdly spoiled we are. I mean, how many times have commercial jets been shot down by missiles?
Posted by Winnemuccan at 10:05 PM : Jan 05, 2008

I don''''t know. How many times, until 9/11/2001 had commercial jets been hijacked and flow into buildings? It is called preventative measures for a reason...

Posted by me4prezz at 10:10 PM : Jan 05, 2008
............

Here''s a great preventative measure...


... PAY ATTENTION TO THE INTELLIGENCE REPORTS THAT SAID (months before it happened) THAT TERRORISTS ARE PLANNING TO FLY AIRLINERS INTO BUILDINGS AS A FORM OF ATTACKING AMERICA!

Now THAT is a GREAT preventative measure!

(but that''s just me).

[usayesterday]

From the article:

"Fort Worth-based American, a unit of AMR Corp., has said anti-missile defense is best handled by stopping terrorists from getting missiles that could shoot down commercial jets and by improving security around airports."

Of course this is the most logical, reliable, and economical approach.

But as I said in my earlier posts on this board, regarding the relationship between the Military Industrial Complex and our politicians, clearly the approach mentioned by the parent company of American Airlines...

...is the least profitable for our government military contractors. And revenue and profitability is the SOLE REASON for the advancement of this goofy, inefficient, and highly suspect airliner "anti-terrorist" device. Really, $100 million just to develop the system, that DOES NOT include the $500k to $1 million to install and integrate the system in EACH PLANE!

Like having guns in the cockpit, anti-missile lasers are only a "feel good" approach to preventing terrorism. (But based on a few postings on this board, it seems that the "feel good" approach has worked well in fooling some people).

[cyberdjs4]

"What I want to know. Why is a non U.S.A. company, getting U.S.A. government contracts?"

For the same reason your American computer contains Chinese-made parts, because its CHEAPER.

[me4prezz]

Well then, I think this demonstrates how absurdly spoiled we are. I mean, how many times have commercial jets been shot down by missiles?
Posted by Winnemuccan at 10:05 PM : Jan 05, 2008

I don''t know. How many times, until 9/11/2001 had commercial jets been hijacked and flow into buildings? It is called preventative measures for a reason...

[winnemuccan]

Well then, I think this demonstrates how absurdly spoiled we are. I mean, how many times have commercial jets been shot down by missiles?

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by jeff-fla at 08:05 PM : Jan 05, 2008

Harder to prove the kickback to Halliburton.

[rowdytexan2]

Posted by walt1944 at 04:25 PM : Jan 05, 2008

Hahahahahahahahhahaahaha! Now I''m shickled!

[jeff-fla]

What I want to know. Why is a non U.S.A. company, getting U.S.A. government contracts?

[mb95835]

American Airlines would be better advised to spend their money upgrading their aging aircraft. That will do much more for safety than this screwy idea.