But it is.
Why we fight:
Posted on 01/31/2005 8:28:57 PM PST by jb6
A top US research group said Tuesday that arming thousands of US commercial airliners against possible ground-to-air missile strikes is currently too pricey as the price of such defensive technology is too high. However, the report by the RAND research corporation said the installation of such systems on the United States' some 6,800 airliners could be justified at a later date if the price of such technology declines.
"Installing such systems on the nation's fleet of commercial airliners would cost an estimated 11 billion dollars, with operating costs ramping up to 2.1 billion annually upon full operational capability," the report said.
"Over 20 years, the cost to develop, procure and operate these systems would amount to an estimated 40 billion," it said.
The US airline industry has been struggling to survive since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. United Airlines and US Airways are vying to emerge from bankruptcy.
The availability of shoulder-fired ground-to-air missile launchers on the black market has fed concerns here in national security circles that attackers might use such weapons in an attempt to down a commercial jet.
In November 2002, assailants attempted to hit an Israeli airliner in Mombasa, Kenya in a failed missile strike.
RAND researchers found there are still too many unresolved questions about how defense systems would operate on commercial airlines, including issues such as the number of false alarms that may occur and whether attackers could find ways to sidestep such safeguards.
All rights reserved. © 2005 Agence France-Presse. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of Agence France-Presse.
Some serious cost-benefit issues. Human life isn't priceless and that 11 billion may save more lives spent elsewhere.
John Kerry has a four step plan. Step one, create these things called airplanes...
But it is.
Why we fight:
The funny thing is that if a manpad that sells for a couple thousand downs an commercial airliner the hit to the economy will be tremendous.
Wrong. Human life isn't priceless. Saying so is simply repeating a myth without really thinking about it. And actually it's a myth that costs lives through inefficient spending.
You may notice that we're not spending an infinite amount of money on safety systems on cars, aircraft, etc. Or an infinite amount of money on kids with cancer.
People SAY human life is priceless, but they do not actually spend money as if it is.
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=4759
Marginalism and the Morality of Pricing Human Lives
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - October 2000
by Dwight R. Lee
Click here to print
Dwight Lee is Ramsey Professor at the Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, and an adjunct fellow at the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University in St. Louis.
When I ask students in my large economics classes if some things are just too important to put a price on, someone always answers, “human life.” This seems like a reasonable answer. After all, how many people would sacrifice their lives for cash, no matter how much was offered? What is the point of being a rich corpse? But economists reject the notion that human life is priceless. They put a price on human life, not because they are uncaring, callous, and completely lacking in moral sensitivity, but because they have a professional interest in understanding human action and because they understand that there is nothing morally lacking about pricing human life.
All of us put a price on our own lives every day with the choices we make and the actions we take. And pricing human life provides information that can save large numbers of lives, certainly not an immoral activity. Unfortunately, the moral superiority that so many people feel when expressing outrage at pricing human life helps keep in place government policies that cause many people to die needlessly.
Recognizing that prices reflect the marginal value of things is the key to understanding why economists put prices on human life. The price of asparagus gives us information on the value of one more pound of asparagus, not the value of the entire crop. Similarly, when economists talk about the price of human life, they are referring to the marginal value of life—the value of a slightly longer life expectancy—not the total value. The total value we put on our lives is extremely high (in most cases infinite), so we would not agree to be killed for any amount of money. Yet we put a very low marginal value on our lives. We routinely do things that reduce our life expectancy by marginal amounts in return for rather minor conveniences and pleasures. We often stay up too late, eat and drink too much, fail to get enough exercise, and drive too fast. When we do so, we are putting a price on our lives, and a pretty low price. Just how much is it worth to eat that extra cream puff or drink that extra beer? You would probably forgo the cream puff for $10, but not to avoid reducing your life expectancy by a marginal amount. If so, the implication is clear—the marginal value, or price, you place on your life is no more than $10.
The Risks of Government Policies to Reduce Risks
There is nothing wrong or irrational about putting a low marginal value on our lives. We face tradeoffs in everything we do, and living a meaningful and satisfying life requires doing things that reduce how long we can expect to live. It is sensible to avoid paying very much to avoid very small risks and the corresponding reductions in life expectancy.
In many situations we can choose how much to pay to avoid risks. We can choose to sacrifice time by slowing down a little, taking a somewhat less dangerous job that pays a little less, or buying a slip-resistant rubber mat for the bathtub (bathtubs are dangerous places). Government policy attempts to reduce many risks we face, but we have little choice in how much we pay for the risk reduction we receive. The justification for government action is that the risks are general, like the risks from pollution, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to protect themselves acting alone. This is a reasonable justification for some risks, although it cannot be used for many government regulations, such as those requiring seat-belt use or outlawing smoking in all bars. But even when government action is justified, it doesn’t make sense to enact regulations that make people pay more to reduce risks than the reduction is worth. Unfortunately, this is common practice.
According to many studies of how much people pay for safety devices and how much income they sacrifice to take safer jobs, they are willing to spend from $3 million to $7 million to save a life. Yet many government regulations impose a far greater cost per life saved. For example, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on benzene storage are estimated to cost $260 million per life saved; EPA regulations on contaminated land disposal over $4.5 billion per life saved; and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations on formaldehyde over $92.7 billion per life saved.* The problem with the high regulatory cost of saving a life is not only that these costs are far higher than the amount individuals would pay, but that these regulations increase the number of lives lost.
What if the 11 billion dollars is spent on tracking down people with MANPADs? Or simply buying up MANPADs and destroying them on the world market?
Like I said, it's a question of efficient use of money.
Due to our current trend of letting aircraft down far from the airport to low approach altitudes you would have a large corridor to protect.
If there is going to be a defense it will be more effective to mount it on aircraft. You have the same problems with clutter, but you know one thing will definitely be pointed at the target aircraft. That is the seeker head. You have to make the seeker fail to see the target or draw it off to an acceptable miss distance. That isn't that far since MANPADS have relatively small warheads.
The Rand report discussed three solutions. Flares, a dazzler, and a destructive laser. I don't think a destructive laser has been developed yet, so it is too Buck Rogers. Flare systems work really well but false alarms mean you shower the air corridor with a bunch of flares. Dazzlers are the best answer. They target certain characteristics of the seeker head to make the missile steer off course. You have to build these systems to target certain weapons, but we know there is a limited number of systems available. SA-7/14/18 and some older model stingers and redeye.
How much life insurance do you have? There's your price.
These systems have some problems other than their cost.
They operate automatically since there is not time for a pilot to manually operate the system in the event of a missile strike. Since the automatic system uses sophisticated sensors to detect a missile, and since those sensors can be fooled that means there are always a certain percentage of false positives (when the system activates even though there is no danger) and false negatives (when the system does not activate even though there is an oncoming missile).
In addition to that, even when the system deploys in response to a genuine missile, it is not always effective.
Finally, because the system is essentially a pile of flares released from the plane to deceive the heat seeking device on the missile, anytime flares are released when they aren't needed, in quantity, from a jet taking off, they pose a hazard of fires to anything on the ground around the airport (like houses, people, cars, businesses, etc.).
I'm not necessarily against the idea, it's just that in this case, the devil is in the details.
The other issue is only a fraction of airliners hit by MANPADS will actually crash.
Regarding this side issue of "How much is a human life worth?", I have experience as a car salesman (please don't hold it against me, I wasn't very good at it) and I have seen many customers who ask for cars that are as safe as possible to protect themselves and their beloved families, but when the additional cost of the safety amounts to more than about 50 bucks per monthly payment, the cheaper (and marginally less safe) model usually wins.
This is not an exaggeration, or sarcasm. This is typical.
Oh god, its more cost efficient to increase border security and customs so missiles don't get into this country to begin with. Border security technologies are where we should be putting most of our effort into. We can't guard from every threat so its best to make a firewall around our country.</p>
I remember reading an old spy/fiction novel from the 70s. The terrorists in it take down an airliner with a 120mm mortar by waiting at the end of the run way and shooting it straight up. Scary to think about that one.
Problem is, when's the last time Uncle Sam bothered with the border? Until something trully horrible happens by those who crossed it, nothing will ever get done. Just like 911, nothing was done to stop it and only half measures since.
The CIA tried that. They gave the Mujahadin a ton of Stingers. Well it worked for about a year, until the Soviets came up with really good tactics to counter them, so the Mujahiden started selling them on the black market (yeah, imagine that, when the CIA asked for them, the Jihadies gave them the finger). So the CIA started trying to buy them up, nope, didn't work, but did raise the price on the damn things quite a bit. Supply and demand and all that. Even the IRA had a few. Good thing the batteries have died on them.
The MOST cost effective way of stopping terrorists from shooting at our airplanes is to kill them where they live and to put an end to the militant religious tribalism that breeds them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.