Replies

You need to do something effective. And in that case, if I were in tactical command at Andrews, and I knew that a plane was inbound towards the DC area, target unknown but undoubtedly of high value, I would have strapped on an unarmed F-16 and gone hunting. And I would have rammed Flight 77.

And yet you support the decision to do NOTHING, which is what was done about Flight 77.

Sounds inconsistant to me.

And yet you support the decision to do NOTHING, which is what was done about Flight 77.

Read up on the kamikazes. Many pilots were approached, few accepted. The ones who didn't accept the mission were never criticized by the program's backers--because that decisionw was correctly viewed as a very personal one, with no predetermined "correct" answer. It required a lot of soul-searching on the part of the prospective kamikaze pilot.

Sounds inconsistant to me.

No, it's an understanding that you really can't morally order someone to do something like that.

You have a choice to either (a) do nothing and hope you can get armed aircraft up in time, or (b) go out and gain entrance to Valhalla on one's own hook through glorious self-sacrifice.

I'm not going to speak ill of the guy who doesn't go for Option B. It's an intensely personal decision. And I'm not going to speak ill of a guy who doesn't go for a PR-related action to LOOK like he's doing something.