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

Skip to comments.

Missile Threat Means New Rules at Airports
NY Times ^ | March 30, 2003 | PHILIP SHENON

Posted on 03/30/2003 4:28:34 AM PST by Pharmboy

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Federal authorities will order major security improvements at several of the nation's largest airports after inspections showed that passenger planes taking off or landing at those airports would be vulnerable to attack by terrorists using shoulder-fired missiles, senior Bush administration officials said.

The inspections, which began several weeks ago, are being conducted by a federal task force created by the White House late last year after terrorists linked to Al Qaeda tried to shoot down an Israeli passenger plane on takeoff from an airport in Kenya in November. The two small, shoulder-fired missiles barely missed the plane.

Administration officials would not identify the airports that would be required to make major safety improvements, citing security reasons. But they said the list included several of the nation's busiest, and that the improvements would include new, round-the-clock security patrols and tightened electronic surveillance of the flight paths used for takeoffs and landings.

This week, dozens of National Guard troops were deployed to the Los Angeles International Airport to patrol the perimeter and road checkpoints, in part because of what security officials acknowledged was concern about shoulder-fired missiles.

A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which manages Kennedy, La Guardia and Newark Liberty International airports, said it was aware of the missile threat and was responding to it. The spokesman, Pasquale DiFulco, said the port authority had a policy of not discussing details of its security planning. "But we have certainly taken the necessary steps and precautions to address these issues," Mr. DiFulco said.

Bush administration officials said that nationwide inspections, which have been carried out at roughly 80 airports by officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies, demonstrated that a terrorist with a shoulder-fired antiaircraft missile weighing as little 30 pounds would find it relatively easy to evade security at many large airports and fire a missile that could bring down a passenger plane.

American intelligence and law enforcement agencies say that Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups are believed to have an arsenal overseas of dozens of shoulder-fired missiles, including the American-made Stinger and the Russian SA-7, and that others can be bought by terrorists on the black market for several thousand dollars each.

Many of the Stingers available on the black market are left over from the American-backed guerrilla effort in Afghanistan to force out Soviet troops in the 1980's. The Stinger and missiles like it are capable of shooting down planes several miles away at heights of more than 10,000 feet.

Administration officials stressed that they had no evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups had managed to smuggle any of the small missiles into the United States, or that they intended to try.

"We are not aware of any credible, specific intelligence information that Manpad attacks are being planned against commercial aircraft in the U.S. at this time," said James M. Loy, director of the Transportation Security Administration, using the acronym for Man Portable Air Defense Systems, the technical name for the missiles. "The administration does, however, recognize the potential threat."

Officials say the attempt to shoot down the Israeli plane in Kenya last November had created alarm in Washington that Al Qaeda would try a similar attack in the United States. The incident near the international airport at Mombasa came six months after a similar Russian-made missile was fired at an American military plane in Saudi Arabia. That missile also missed.

American intelligence officials say that in the attacks in both Kenya and Saudi Arabia, the planes may have been saved by antimissile technology that is routinely installed in Israeli passenger jets and United States military planes.

There is no similar federal requirement that antimissile defense systems be built into American passenger planes. But since the Kenya attack, a growing bipartisan movement in Congress has called for the installation of antimissile systems on American-owned commercial planes in the United States.

After a Congressional briefing on the issue by representatives of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon earlier this month, Representative John L. Mica, a Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation, said that the missile threat was sobering and "we can't afford not to act." Mr. Mica said that he would seek immediate federal financing to protect commercial planes against terrorist missiles.

Federal aviation officials say that it costs about $1 million to $2 million to outfit a passenger plane with equipment to deflect a missile.

There are a variety of different types of antimissile technologies available, including a system that releases decoy flares to draw a heat-seeking missile away from a plane; other systems use jamming equipment to interfere with a missile's guidance system.

Lawmakers say that among the American passenger planes likely to be outfitted first would be those used routinely for flights overseas, especially to parts of the world where Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are known to exist.

In a speech last month to an air travel conference in Thailand, Steven J. McHale, the No. 2 official in the Transportation Security Administration, warned his Asian counterparts about the dangers of portable missiles and called on their governments to step up security around their airports and to make sure that their own military stocks of the missiles were secure.

"There are thousands available on the gray and black markets, and many of these are finding their way into the hands of terrorist groups," Mr. McHale said of the portable missiles. He warned that a single missile attack on a passenger plane in Asia "would likely cripple international aviation."

Asa Hutchinson, the under secretary for border and transportation security in the Department of Homeland Security, said in an interview that the federal government had taken a variety of steps in recent months to deal with the missile threat at major airports, although he could not reveal details for security reasons. "We're much better off than we were some time ago," Mr. Hutchinson said. "But certainly this is a threat and a vulnerability that we're concerned with."

While the federal government has the authority to order airports to step up counterterrorism measures, Mr. Hutchinson said the Department of Homeland Security understood the budget constraints on many large airports. "There will be negotiation," he said. "Obviously we're not going to be telling them to do something they're totally incapable of doing."

The worldwide inventory of portable surface-to-air missiles is estimated at 700,000, according to government officials and private weapons specialists. The vast majority of those missiles are in government arsenals, but munitions specialists say that shoulder-fired missiles like the Stinger and the SA-7 are so small and portable that many are diverted from government stocks each year and sold on the black market. A Stinger is about 5 feet long, 6 inches wide and weighs about 35 pounds when fully armed.

John Iannarelli, a spokesman for the F.B.I., said that many airports were being asked to step up their training of security officers to be on the lookout for the missiles. "A lot of this is educational," Mr. Iannarelli said. "These are rather conspicuous weapons, and we want to make sure that it is recognized for what it is."

Administration officials said some large airports had stepped up anti-missile security measures long before the federal inspectors arrived.

Logan Airport in Boston is flanked on three sides by water, and airport officials have provided local clam diggers with mobile phones to allow them to call in if they see suspicious activities.

The chief spokesman at San Francisco International Airport, Mike McCarron, said that inspectors from the Transportation Security Administration completed their review of the airport's antimissile defense this month. Mr. McCarron said airport officials believed San Francisco International was better protected than others because it is surrounded by water, allowing the Coast Guard to keep a close eye on activities nearby. He said that the airport had also stepped up its road patrols on the perimeter of the airport.

"We think we've got a pretty good idea of what's going on," he said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: airseclist; commercialaviation; homelandsecurity; jihadinamerica; missiles; stingers; terrorism; twa800
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
Logan Airport in Boston is flanked on three sides by water, and airport officials have provided local clam diggers with mobile phones to allow them to call in if they see suspicious activities.

Well, it's a start. At the very least, they're finally admitting what we have known for some time. TWA 800 anyone?

1 posted on 03/30/2003 4:28:34 AM PST by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


C. J. Gunther for The New York Times
Chester MacDonald is one of the fishermen
that Logan Airport in Boston has given
mobile phones so they can report suspicious
activities.
2 posted on 03/30/2003 4:31:25 AM PST by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
IMHO, this spells doom for the airline business.
3 posted on 03/30/2003 4:35:07 AM PST by duckman (ta ra ra boom de ay, lets bomb SADDAM today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
I get the queasy feelign that a lot of Homeland Security is designed to create the impression of security without actually increasing security.

Did you know that even the phrase "loose lips sink ships" was a propaganda campaign? Our lousy coastal defenses and piss poor ASW sank ships. "Loose lips" never sank a single ship.
4 posted on 03/30/2003 4:38:16 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Did you know that even the phrase "loose lips sink ships" was a propaganda campaign? Our lousy coastal defenses and piss poor ASW sank ships. "Loose lips" never sank a single ship.

Oh pooh, we now have adults running everything and our G-d is bigger than their G-d too, so there won't be any ships sinking on Bush's watch.

5 posted on 03/30/2003 4:47:19 AM PST by TightSqueeze (From the Department of Homeland Security, sponsors of Liberty-Lite, Less Freedom! / Red Tape!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TightSqueeze
I agree with you in part. But Homeboy Security is a joke. And the new surveillance laws will damamge our high tech economy. Dubya's doing a great job at bringing us real security by killing AQ overseas. Tom Ridge does not impress me.
6 posted on 03/30/2003 4:54:58 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Why aren't we buying all of the units available on the black market? It sounds like cheap insurance.
7 posted on 03/30/2003 5:00:54 AM PST by Marak (Iraq to the west, Korea to the north - Watch Taiwan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: duckman
I agree. If the terrorists manage to get just one of these SAM attacks off in the U.S., it's going to be a long time before many people fly again. The stakes are high.
8 posted on 03/30/2003 5:06:55 AM PST by SamAdams76 (California wine beats French wine in blind taste tests. Boycott French wine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eno_
There are HUNDREDS of spots on the approaches to these airports where someone could hide with a missle. It's impossible to provide complete security for our airports.
9 posted on 03/30/2003 5:07:25 AM PST by Lynne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lynne
Yes, therefore this program is put on for show. Equip two planes with flares (only our masters in government will know which), give cell phones to clam diggers, and tell the sheeple to keep flying.
10 posted on 03/30/2003 5:09:45 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: eno_
There isn't anything preventing these missiles from being smuggled over large expanses of our borders that are wide open and unguarded inbetween checkpoints.

What plan does Bush's vaunted Dept. of Homeland Security have in place to keep terrorists from targeting the Sear's Tower or the Empire State Building with these missiles?

11 posted on 03/30/2003 5:30:06 AM PST by 4Freedom (America is no longer the 'Land of Opportunity', it's the 'Land of Illegal Alien Opportunists'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: duckman
I think it's a back door way to bail out the airlines just like FAA paid millions for cockpit door hardening. The FAA will overpay for these missle detectors intentionally and the airlines will pocket the difference. The FAA (since Linda Dascle was in charge) is so in bed with the airlines it's not funny.
12 posted on 03/30/2003 5:37:11 AM PST by afz400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
"they're finally admitting what we have known for some time."

Yes, it has been an obvious threat also since the time shoulder-fired missles were found hidden in the area around the Prag airport, about the time of 9-11-01.

I thought something would have been done about it in the "improved" airport security, but instead they decided to confiscate knitting needles from little old ladies and tiny pins or representations of guns or bullets from aged veterans and etc . . .

I thought one part of the equation could be improved passenger train service, for example. (I know the entire length of track cannot be secured, but at least you are on the ground most of the time, and a derailment does not carry the TV impact of a plane falling from the sky . . .)
13 posted on 03/30/2003 5:49:59 AM PST by AMDG&BVMH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
I'm flying to the left coast tomorrow...not thrilled.
14 posted on 03/30/2003 6:03:32 AM PST by Pharmboy (Dems lie 'cause they have to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lynne
You are part of the security, as is every other American.

Carry your cell phone everywhere. And your CCW sidearm. Consider a trunk carbine.
15 posted on 03/30/2003 6:09:57 AM PST by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 4Freedom
An anti-aircraft missile carries a few pounds of high explosive, and shrapnel designed to damage a plane, not people. It would mess up a few offices in a big tower, but no danger to the structure.

You need a pretty big truck bomb to take down a big building.
16 posted on 03/30/2003 6:15:16 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eno_
These idiots can't even detect boat loads of Cubanos coming up from Cuba into the Florida Keys. There is NO WAY that Ridge and the other fools in DC can stop a determined(martyr) individual from shooting down an airliner or blowing up an airport. To think otherwise simply gives a false sense of security.
17 posted on 03/30/2003 6:16:40 AM PST by jsraggmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Federal authorities will order major security improvements at several of the nation's largest airports

Federal authorities will eliminate all commercial air travel in this country,eviscerate the economy, kill tourism and travel, stop mail delivery and interstate commerce so we will all be safe. Very, very safe.

The terrorists have won.

Best regards,

18 posted on 03/30/2003 6:22:17 AM PST by Copernicus (A Constitutional Republic revolves around Sovereign Citizens, not citizens around government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eno_
You're kidding, right?

The terrorists don't have to bring the building down. They just need to kill 100 or so people inside and kill or injure the same number of pedestrians down below with the debris and a lot of people are afraid to go to work the next day.

I remember the wind knocking some of the decorative marble off the side of Water Tower Place in Chicago and it crushing the hell out of some pedestrians below. Imagine what one of these missiles could shake loose and send flying. How about a LAWS rocket?

19 posted on 03/30/2003 6:24:56 AM PST by 4Freedom (America is no longer the 'Land of Opportunity', it's the 'Land of Illegal Alien Opportunists'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jsraggmann
Or truckloads of Iraqis coming across our borders.
20 posted on 03/30/2003 6:28:11 AM PST by 4Freedom (America is no longer the 'Land of Opportunity', it's the 'Land of Illegal Alien Opportunists'!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

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