Author Topic: It's about time! - Anti-Missile Defense (Read 1656 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #45 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:35:59 AM »

Situation:
A lactose intolerant man drives up to a McDonalds drive-through. He carefully orders a hamburger. Unbeknownst to him, an Al Qaida operative with a CB radio is overwhelming the radio connection to the person taking the order and has instead ordered a CHEESEBURGER. Within minutes of beginning his meal, the man is overcome with abdominal cramps and shortly after, sprays diarrhea through the cab of his pickup truck.

Another point for the terrorists!

Solution:
A $5 billion plan to develop secure encryption for drive-through radio links so that terrorists can't launch these dastardly attacks on our national dignity.

When you order over an unsecured radio link, you're pulling forward... WITH OSAMA!

Nilsen · « **Reply #46 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:43:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Denholm
What's the ratio on train travel to aerial travel? There's your answer as to why this device is being tested.

I know you can't secure everything, but that doesn't mean we can't try.

Flying in and out of hotspots? yes. For general aviation outside of hotspots its just a waste of money that will add to the ticket that is going to get alot more expencive with rising fuel costs anyway.

AKIron · « **Reply #47 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:47:59 AM »

Does indeed sound like a waste of money. I'm all for eliminating wasteful spending, especially when it's my money. How many billions do we waste on buying crack for those who refuse to get a job? How much do we spend on supporting Mexican citizens who come here illegally to steal our jobs? This missile defense thing is a tiny drop in a large bucket. I'd rather get indignant about some real waste.

oh yeah, how much have we wasted on the fear mongering global warming/changists?

Denholm · « **Reply #48 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:13:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nilsen
Flying in and out of hotspots? yes. For general aviation outside of hotspots its just a waste of money that will add to the ticket that is going to get alot more expencive with rising fuel costs anyway.

I agree, but with no test subjects to prove the reliability of this product, how can it be proven effective? Right now American Airlines is helping BAE by testing out their product. Without the tests to prove their product's reliability under particular weather circumstances BAE can't sell their product to companies that need it.

SD67 · « **Reply #49 on:** January 25, 2008, 03:38:00 PM »

So who gets to fire missiles at them to test it out then?

Denholm · « **Reply #50 on:** January 25, 2008, 07:12:54 PM »

Computers get all the fun.

"...The use of a signal to mimic a missile attack has already been tested in the air, Wagner said.

Those tests also showed that the anti-missile systems didn't interfere with the jet's other controls..."

MORAY37 · « **Reply #51 on:** January 25, 2008, 07:16:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
This belongs in the Global Warming/Climate Change/Catastrophe thread(s).

LOL. Just can't keep it compartmentalized, can you?

AKIron · « **Reply #52 on:** January 25, 2008, 07:18:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MORAY37
LOL. Just can't keep it compartmentalized, can you?

Not when the application is so easy. It just begged to be said.

SD67 · « **Reply #53 on:** January 25, 2008, 07:46:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Denholm
Computers get all the fun.

"...The use of a signal to mimic a missile attack has already been tested in the air, Wagner said.

Those tests also showed that the anti-missile systems didn't interfere with the jet's other controls..."

Oh great.

1st Officer: Captain, EWS is detecting a missile launch!
Captain: Don't worry George, the anti missile system will take care of it, it's performed flawlessly in all the computer tests.
1st Officer: Oh goody! I feel much safer n..........

Toad · « **Reply #54 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:03:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MORAY37
put breathalizers in the cockpit of civilian airliners....you know, things that are more likely to cause your plane to end up "in a bad landing".

Is that at all likely?

Can you show us some loss of life accidents where the people in the cockpit of a civilian airliner did fail/would have failed a breathalyser test?

Take your time; list as many as you can find.

Thanks!

Chairboy · « **Reply #55 on:** January 25, 2008, 09:56:30 PM »

Its actually happened a couple times in the last year, you're unaware of the news stories?

Toad · « **Reply #56 on:** January 25, 2008, 10:00:46 PM »

Civilian airliner with fatalities and proven intoxicated pilots?

Yes, I missed those. Can you give me a link or some way to find those?

Roughly how many instances would you say?

MORAY37 · « **Reply #57 on:** January 26, 2008, 12:12:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Civilian airliner with fatalities and proven intoxicated pilots?

Yes, I missed those. Can you give me a link or some way to find those?

Roughly how many instances would you say?

Whilst getting those figure for you sir, please direct me to the list of civilian airliners downed via Manportables. How many fatalities there?

Angus · « **Reply #58 on:** January 26, 2008, 12:16:30 PM »

The art of shooting down aircraft is not new.

BTW, the last downed airliner by missile was where and shot down by who?

And the biggest casualties of such an incident were where and done by who?

(it will be tested if I am right out of my head but I think of the Persian Gulf in the former (USA being the shooter), and the USSR shooting down a S-Korean airliner in the second)

Chairboy · « **Reply #59 on:** January 26, 2008, 12:39:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Civilian airliner with fatalities and proven intoxicated pilots?

Yes, I missed those. Can you give me a link or some way to find those?

Roughly how many instances would you say?

No, pilots pulled from cockpits of jetliners because they were intoxicated. You added the 'crashes with fatalities' bit yourself.