More tax dollars are headed toward the Fatherland Insecurity drain. Article here (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6067494.htm).
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
$60M Urged for Airlines' Antimissile Plan
LESLIE MILLER
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is being urged to spend $60 million researching the feasibility of devices to protect commercial planes from shoulder-fired missiles.
Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee, will submit a plan for funding the Homeland Security Department on Thursday that will include the money for the antimissile devices, according to a congressional staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
He wants to make sure the anti-missile program for commercial aircraft is funded, the staffer said.</font>
bdschobel
Jun 12, 03, 6:08 am
Better to spend money on this than on 60,000 screeners.
Bruce
bxwatso
Jun 12, 03, 11:04 am
If I ever hear "the flight is delayed because the aircraft's anti-missle equipment is broken," I will explode. No bomb needed.
What a waste of money.
clrankin
Jun 12, 03, 11:13 am
OK, so now we're creating more programs to guard against something that hasn't even happened yet.
Does someone in the government know of solid plans by a terrorist group to do this sort of thing? If so, then they should spill the beans-- where public safety is concerned, the public has the right to know. We can then investigate the feasibility of anti-terrorism devices on aircraft in an open, public, intelligent manner. (of course the Bush/Ashcroft/Ridge triumverate wouldn't like this-- they would try to quash such discussions "for security reasons")
If not, then doesn't this whole thing smack just a little bit of Chicken Little running around screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"? Why give more taxpayer money to the airlines for this?
People are already complaining that President Bush is being fiscally irresponsible by cutting taxes and increasing spending at this point in time. While I may not totally agree with the fiscally irresponsible argument, I do think that they have a point-- especially when we're now talking about arming civilian aircraft. What's next-- will the US start arming all cruise ships with antiaircraft weapons? Where will the madness end?
Of course, arming civilian aircraft can create all kinds of potential problems. Are missiles going to be loaded and unloaded with each flight? If so, who will load/unload them-- the military? If civilians are involved, then they will need to go through some thorough training for this. If the missiles won't be loaded/unloaded daily, then who will guard the planes against terrorists overnight? God, please don't let it be the TSA.
And what happens if one of these things misfire while in flight? What happens when one fires but misses its target? These are civilian airports in sometimes densely populated areas, and civilian jets which were not designed for combat operations. Who will be responsible if one fires off and wipes out a few homes, killing a few folks along the way? The airlines? The government? Remember, any system that would be added to a jet will not be foolproof-- all software has bugs that need to be worked out.
If the airlines are going to get any money at all for homeland security type gadgets, then it should come in the form of a grant from the government to hire private security screeners-- this can come straight from the TSA's budget (take it all away, please!).
FWAAA
Jun 12, 03, 11:15 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bxwatso:
If I ever hear "the flight is delayed because the aircraft's anti-missle equipment is broken," I will explode. No bomb needed.
I think we should spend as much money as we possibly can on "security" and the military.</font>
Well, I won't be satisfied until the WHOLE U.S. economy is devoted to "security." We can't be too safe, right? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif
Bruce
Spiff
Jun 12, 03, 1:21 pm
If they really want this, Congress should mandate that the TSA pay for it out of their budget and not be permitted to increase wait times: no more random security, no more shoe checks, no more secondary harassment. There will be money leftover from the cost savings.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
The Unknown Screener
Jun 12, 03, 8:07 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by clrankin:
OK, so now we're creating more programs to guard against something that hasn't even happened yet.</font>
Yeah, like building that anti-ballistic missle system in Alaska to ward off a missle attack from North Korea. Why? They have never fired a missle at us before.
------------------
"Be the inferior of no man, nor be the superior. Remember that every man is a variation of yourself. No man's guilt is not yours, nor is any man's innocence a thing apart." William Saroyan, American Playwright
xyzzy
Jun 12, 03, 8:23 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Yeah, like building that anti-ballistic missle system in Alaska to ward off a missle attack from North Korea. Why? They have never fired a missle at us before.
</font>
Don't get me started on that one. Someone I know who works on the project calls it "The Maginot line of the 21st century." Talk about a *TOTAL* waste of money.
dlombard
Jun 15, 03, 8:04 pm
Uh...
Maybe the idea is to be one step ahead of the bad guy so that we can actually prevent something from happening in the first place. Instead of waiting for someone to try it with the risk of a life being lost.
Ya'll got any better ideas?
------------------
Best regards,
Dairenn Lombard
Los Angeles, CA
birdstrike
Jun 15, 03, 8:14 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by clrankin:
Of course, arming civilian aircraft can create all kinds of potential problems. Are missiles going to be loaded and unloaded with each flight?</font>
They will keep them on the catering trucks.
Seriously, no one is talking about putting anti-missiles on civilian aircraft - more like flares that can be dropped to decoy heat seekers.
essxjay
Jun 15, 03, 8:48 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by dlombard:
Uh...
Maybe the idea is to be one step ahead of the bad guy so that we can actually prevent something from happening in the first place. Instead of waiting for someone to try it with the risk of a life being lost.
Ya'll got any better ideas?
</font>
Yeah. It's called reductio ad absurdum. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif
Plato90s
Jun 15, 03, 9:35 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
If they really want this, Congress should mandate that the TSA pay for it out of their budget and not be permitted to increase wait times: no more random security, no more shoe checks, no more secondary harassment. There will be money leftover from the cost savings.</font>
Hmm, only took about 12 hours for Spiff to make this about the TSA.
Now, had he read the article instead of making the usual knee-jerk reaction to blame the TSA, it'd be a lot more clear that this is just Congressional pork disguised as homeland security spending. The $60M being quoted isn't to deploy anything, merely to study the feasibility of anti-missle defenses.
The congressman being cited is a Republican from Kentucky. Want to bet on which state this $60M will be spent in?
Spiff
Jun 16, 03, 7:16 am
Congress allocates a budget for the TSA (though the TSA seems to act like it is free to spend whatever it wishes). Congress should stop this free spending pattern on airport security; if they want an anti-missle system, they should drop the asinine harassment that is currently being employed. In other words, there should be a finite amount of cash spent on airport security and that wise decisions need to be made as to what will be used/studied instead of this current, idiotic knee-jerk "reaction-mode" 'security'.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
Hmm, only took about 12 hours for Spiff to make this about the TSA.
Now, had he read the article instead of making the usual knee-jerk reaction to blame the TSA, it'd be a lot more clear that this is just Congressional pork disguised as homeland security spending. The $60M being quoted isn't to deploy anything, merely to study the feasibility of anti-missle defenses.
The congressman being cited is a Republican from Kentucky. Want to bet on which state this $60M will be spent in?</font>
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
Plato90s
Jun 16, 03, 10:54 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Congress allocates a budget for the TSA (though the TSA seems to act like it is free to spend whatever it wishes). Congress should stop this free spending pattern on airport security; if they want an anti-missle system, they should drop the asinine harassment that is currently being employed. In other words, there should be a finite amount of cash spent on airport security and that wise decisions need to be made as to what will be used/studied instead of this current, idiotic knee-jerk "reaction-mode" 'security'.</font>
My point is that the Congressman in question isn't even concerned with airline security. I'd say he doesn't ever expect such anti-missle devices to be deployed.
It's just a pork project being slipped in under the guise of homeland security. Stuff like this used to be done to study food safety, tire safety, etc...
It's just pork.
But it's your personal bias which subsequently ties this into the TSA and hijacks the thread into another opportunity to rant about your personal white whale - TSA.
clrankin
Jun 16, 03, 3:50 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Yeah, like building that anti-ballistic missle system in Alaska to ward off a missle attack from North Korea. Why? They have never fired a missle at us before.</font>
If we employed this logic ad infinitum, we would be spending about 43% of our budget to prepare for the eventual attack of little green midget men from planets beyond our solar system. After all, just because they haven't yet attacked Earth and enslaved the entire human race doesn't mean they won't.
We can waste vast amounts of money preparing for all sorts of things that might happen, or we can spend substantially smaller amounts of it for a few sensible security measures and deal with problems as they arise. I see this program as a prime example of the former-- an overreaction of large proportions, just like many of the security directives that the TSA and DHS has issued over the past year and a half.
All government pork spending needs to stop; not wasting money on a civilian aircraft anti-missile defense system that won't likely be all that effective seems like a good place to put a halt on this spending to me.
Plato90s
Jun 16, 03, 4:18 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by clrankin:
We can waste vast amounts of money preparing for all sorts of things that might happen, or we can spend substantially smaller amounts of it for a few sensible security measures and deal with problems as they arise. I see this program as a prime example of the former-- an overreaction of large proportions, just like many of the security directives that the TSA and DHS has issued over the past year and a half.
All government pork spending needs to stop; not wasting money on a civilian aircraft anti-missile defense system that won't likely be all that effective seems like a good place to put a halt on this spending to me.</font>
Let me repeat. This is not a security directive. There are no civilian aicraft anti-missle defense systems.
This is a feasiblity study, which is another way of saying pork project, whose only purpose is to divert federal money to states with influential congressmen/senators.
There will never be any civilian aircraft anti-missle defense system deployed. We'll just spend $60M to tell us it's not feasible because Congress enjoys spending taxpayer money on useless projects in order to buy votes.
clrankin
Jun 16, 03, 4:40 pm
Plato,
It looks like we both agree that this $60M is a waste of money though. Whether it's for a study or putting an actual system in place, it's something that neither time nor resources should be wasted upon.
avek00
Jun 16, 03, 7:43 pm
Actually, I think the feasibility study could well turn out to be money well spent. Given that hijackings and old-fashioned ings are less likely to be successful nowadays, missile attacks are arguably now the easiest way to try to bring down a jetliner.
Spiff
Jun 17, 03, 7:23 am
There are lots of expensive studies that might be good. However, we only have a finite budget for security, though some people don't act or spend like we do. We need to cap security spending and use the money so allocated wisely, not in the manner that the TSA has done with their share of it.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by avek00:
Actually, I think the feasibility study could well turn out to be money well spent. Given that hijackings and old-fashioned ings are less likely to be successful nowadays, missile attacks are arguably now the easiest way to try to bring down a jetliner.</font>
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
birdstrike
Jun 17, 03, 3:59 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
There are no civilian aicraft anti-missle defense systems.</font>