Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Chainmail
1. 747s are civilian aircraft without the redundancy and strength requirements of military aircraft. Loading one up with nukes and waiting for one to inevitably crash is incredibly stupid. How many 747s have already crashed into mountains/piled into the sea so far?

According to Wikipedia, there have been 60 hull-losses of 747’s, less than 4% of the total built. And many of these were hijackings, blown up, stuck by lightning, hitting another plane on the ground (Tenerife), etc.

Possibly a better record than the B-52’s.

15 posted on 08/05/2016 12:26:16 PM PDT by chaosagent (Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: chaosagent

Even one loss of a nuclear-armed aircraft is a disaster. That B-52 that crashed in Palomares Spain is still causing problems 50 years later.

747s are an overaged, weak aircraft. Criminally stupid idea.

C-17s would be a better choice.


17 posted on 08/06/2016 3:53:09 AM PDT by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson