Replies

So how big of a restricted area would you want around every major target in the US? 30 miles?

If you plan on flying to New York, you are under ATC control. That apparently was not the case today. We should definitely know everything in the air over New York City and know who is flying it and who the passengers are. Need additional ATC? Fine hire them.

I can cover 30 miles in 5 minutes, so obviously you need a bigger restricted area, say a 100 mile radius. That would provide a 15 minute period to prepare to shoot me down and give me fair warning, that might be enough. But that is exactly the same as banning GA aircraft.

No, the range of a Phalanx is pretty much the terminal limit for me.

Would you really want to put a couple of Phalanxes over a football stadium?

Sure, I have no problem with an air defense system. Contrary to what you seem to think, I'd have it pointed OUT.

I can just see your world now, each city would have a couple of hundred Phlanxes to guard everything that they think a terrorist in a 1200 lb. airplane might consider committing suicide on

A little exaggeration on your part. Sears Tower...yes. Statue of Liberty...yes. US Capital...yes. White House...yes. Pentagon....yes. Empire State building...yes.

Our enemies like symbolic targets and air attack. I'd say you need to defend symbolic targets from air attacks. Call me crazy.

I wonder though what would be more dangerous, a mad terrorist in a tiny plane or a mad terrorist in control of a phalanx on top of the Sears Tower? I think the point is that its easier to restrict access to an air defense system than it is to restrict access to every small aircraft. Which are you in favor of? Restricting access to small aircraft, or restricting aircraft to stay away from likely terrorist targets...or nuttin as long as you get to enjoy your day?

You didn't answer my other question though. Do you support banning the terrorists proven choice of weapon, the car?

I am absolutely in favor of restricting the areas that a car can go. I would suggest shooting any driver that tries to drive up the Supreme Court steps or goes veering across the mall toward the Vietnam Memorial or the like. Call me crazy but I don't mind restricting access for cars around potential targets of symbolic or national importance. Airplanes...don't get a free pass in my mind. (p.s. we probably ought to restrict boat access to the side of dams also.)

If you plan on flying to New York, you are under ATC control. That apparently was not the case today. We should definitely know everything in the air over New York City and know who is flying it and who the passengers are. Need additional ATC? Fine hire them.

They had to have a working and functioning mode C transponder. So ATC knew exactly where they were, whether they were talking to them or not it wouldn't have made any difference at all, Zero, zip, nada.

A little exaggeration on your part. Sears Tower...yes. Statue of Liberty...yes. US Capital...yes. White House...yes. Pentagon....yes. Empire State building...yes.

Our enemies like symbolic targets and air attack. I'd say you need to defend symbolic targets from air attacks. Call me crazy.

So you don't think the Green Bay Packers playing the Dallas Cowboys wouldn't make a great symbolic target? Or a nuclear plant? How about the Sky Dome. If you were the mayor of a city wouldn't you be pissed if you didn't qualify for protection? Do you honestly believe that it would end with 5 places being protected?

I am absolutely in favor of restricting the areas that a car can go. I would suggest shooting any driver that tries to drive up the Supreme Court steps or goes veering across the mall toward the Vietnam Memorial or the like. Call me crazy but I don't mind restricting access for cars around potential targets of symbolic or national importance. Airplanes...don't get a free pass in my mind. (p.s. we probably ought to restrict boat access to the side of dams also.)

Is there any freedom that you don't mind giving up for a little extra safety?