Airline Anti-Missile System "Too Costly" for our Airlines

[Bluebear]

But let's spend $1.5B to build an embassy in Baghdad. Evidently Halliburton does not make such a system to protect U.S. passengers, or the administration would be all over it.



=====

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. anti-missile technology is still too costly to install on America's passenger airlines to guard against Al Qaeda using shoulder-fired missiles to shoot down the planes, according to a study on Tuesday.

Laser-based jammer technology, used mainly in military aircraft to thwart shoulder-fired missile attacks, is not yet practical to use on commercial airplanes, said the study by RAND Corp., a non-profit research organization.

The report said it would cost about $11 billion plus about $2.1 billion a year in operational costs to install missile countermeasures on the nation's 6,800 commercial aircraft.

"Given the significant costs involved with operating countermeasures based upon current technology, we believe a decision to install such systems aboard commercial airliners should be postponed until the technologies can be developed and shown to be more compatible in a commercial environment," RAND said in its report.

"Al Qaeda and its affiliates have both the motive and the means to bring down U.S. commercial aircraft with shoulder-fired missiles," the study said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050125/bs_nm/security_missiles_dc_2

[Last Lemming]

1. If al Qaeda can do it

by God, we have the knowledge and skill to do it as well
Check CIA under "other duties as assigned"

[Bluebear]

2. Indeed. Point being, $200B for Iraq....

but $11B is "too costly" to protect US aviation interests.

[Last Lemming]

5. (referencing post from below) That plane will come down

when it needs to come down to perform some vital political agenda or another--the draft I suspect

Wake up people--how many "terrorists" have been successfully prosecuted since 9/11????? Where are the "terrorists" who must have assisted the 9/11 "hijackers". Why did Rumsfeld talk about "the people who shot down the plane in Pennsylvania" were the same as the ones who beheaded people in Iraq? Why did Goreleck on the 9/11 commission refer to the missle strike on the Pentagon? Why don't we truly secure our ports, develop sources, why do we generally act like terrorism is not really a big deal here--it's because we know when the next strike will be because, if it really involves Al Qaeda, they'll be patsies, just like you and me. The guys that call the shots won't be worried They will be in a secure undisclosed locations.

There is no "War on Terror" Pure marketing

[Kingshakabobo]

3. Watch how cost effective it becomes when a plane is brought down.

The administration will throw up their hands and say "we never thought this could happen." And the MSM will let them get away with it.

[Bluebear]

4. Your scenario rings true

Not only the MSM but the adoring Bush flock.