And secondly, how many social programs and other more useful things in the U.S. could be totally paid for with the money they are proposing spending on these very expensive lasers?
Note: Northrop Grumman and BA...
U.S. Considers Mounting Lasers On Commercial Airliners
Posted on Monday, May 30 at 18:06 by sthompson
Of course, if someone shot at a commercial plane with a heat-seeking missile it would be a disaster. But the same argument could be applied to almost anything. It would also be a disaster, say, if someone blew up a city bus with a hand-held grenade launcher. So do we retrofit city buses with lasers too, just in case? How likely is it REALLY that people will be shooting heat-seeking missiles at U.S. commercial planes anyway? Why spend 11 BILLION preparing for something that may happen maybe once if ever?
Contributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
<br />
<a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031203-manpads.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031203-manpads.htm</a><br />
<br />
Although things may have changed the past couple of years, it's interesting to note the $100 billion dollar figure estimated by by non-government sources, as opposed to the $10 or #11 billion indicated.<br />
<br />
As the article indicates, and while it may seem a bit cold-blooded, there are a considerable number of questions re: cost-effectiveness and actual effectiveness, so I'd be surprised if this got past the study stage.<br />
<br />
That being said, why would it?<br />
<br />
Obviously the defence industry stand to make some money here, so it's reasonable to expect some lobbying.<br />
<br />
Then there's the political perspective.<br />
<br />
Here are some 2003 U.S. death statistics:<br />
<br />
Hwy traffic deaths - 43,220<br />
Alchol related - 17,013<br />
U.S. Murders - 15,960<br />
<br />
Based on this figures and using 400 passengers on a plane, terrorists would have to shoot down about a 108 planes a year to equal traffic fatalities and about 85 to equal annual deaths for alcohol and murder.<br />
<br />
Given that terrorists will not be approaching anything like the numbers above and that the U.S. is probably not spending $10 Billion to address any of the above noted causes of death and that most in the U.S. more or less just accept these numbers as a given for each of the same, or at least probably aren't busy lobbying their government to do much about them, the suggested scheme re: civilian aircraft just shouldn't make sense to most.<br />
<br />
However, as we've all seen, the human mind reacts differently to incidents involving many deaths at once as a group than it does to many more deaths suffered individually over a more extended period of time. The thought of 50,000 people killed annually on highways just doesn't carry the same impact for most as 400 dying at once in a plane crash or other tragic event. <br />
<br />
As indicated, the chances of a passenger plane being shot down are fairly slim. However, if this does occur it's reasonable to expect a public outcry, most certainly from relatives, as to 'why wasn't something done to prevent this"? This outcry would of course include references to the Rand report and articles such as the above and would see few saying 'yes, but when you measure this against annual traffic deaths or plane crashes due to accident or misadventure....'. Most would not be looking at things in terms of cost-effectiveness, etc.<br />
<br />
Years ago, interviews with the relatives and news analysis would have been limited to short news segments and newspaper articles, which would more or less vanish from the overall public conscious in a relatively short period of time. <br />
<br />
In our current 24 televised news environment, it's reasonable to expect CNN. Fox, etc. to run the story with some descriptive title, e.g., Mid-air Massacre over Munich, continuously for weeks or months on end, which is not something most politicians thinking about re-election would see as desirable to occur.<br />
<br />
I personally think spending $10 Billion on a scheme of this nature would be nuts. As Sue indicated, the money could be spent in more productive ways to 'save' lives, whether in addressing some of the causes of death noted above or in other areas, e.g., education, to aid those who might otherwise not be able to afford the same and in consequence not be able to make the contribution to their own llives or society that might otherwise have been the case. <br />
<br />
This is where a referendum comes in handy. If it came to a choice, ask the people if they think the situation is worth $10 billion or more of their money and spread the responsibility for the decision around. <br />
<br />
<p>---<br>"When we are in the middle of the paradigm, it is hard to imagine any other paradigm" (Adam Smith).<br />