Arming Outer Space

TKalbfus wrote:

I fail to see how arms or the military could have prevented the attacks.

Eric

Two stinger missiles launched from the towers could have shot down both planes.
The Pentagon should have been bristling with weapons as the headquarters of the
US military, I don't know why it was treated as just an office building.

Tom

Wow! They sure must have upgraded those stinger missiles.

I never heard of the ones capable of stopping an airliner in
flight on a collision course with a building.

Mike Walsh

TKalbfus wrote:

I fail to see how arms or the military could have prevented the attacks.

Eric

Two stinger missiles launched from the towers could have shot down both planes.
The Pentagon should have been bristling with weapons as the headquarters of the
US military, I don't know why it was treated as just an office building.

Tom

Do you want to be the one to decide in a matter of seconds if an
approaching aircraft is on a kamakaze mission or not? Remember, the USS
Vincennes misjudged once. So did Israel's Air Force. (believing an
attack on the Dimona reactor was in progress).

Remember, Washington D.C. is a major city, with plenty of normal air
traffic to be expected. It's not easy to sort threats from 'noise' in
such an environment. Even more so in New York City. And it's also an
area rich in symbolic targets. (the plane that went down in PA may have
been heading for another one of them) Can you cover them all?

The Air Force and Air National Guards exist to protect D.C. (and the
rest of the US) from conventional military air attack, that's your
'bristling weapons.' Knowing when a civillian aircraft has been co-opted
to deadly ends, is a whole other problem, that won't be solved by
throwing SAMs at it.

And do note, even a last-minute intercepted plane is still going to
crash on *something* downtown. Depending on the approach direction, you
might save the White House, but lose the Capitol, or vice-versa....


--

You know what to remove, to reply....

(Steve Dufour) wrote in message . com...
. A single reasonably hardened orbital platform with
an energy weapon or even just overgrown lawn darts could render every
surface naval vessel obsolete and vulnerable.

It's baloney anyway, because
1. You'd need an extensive network of satellites, due to the facts of
orbital motion.
2. Existing Aegis ships already have the radar capability to track and
shoot down stuff that's way up--enough that the changes required for
THAD (Theatre Area Defense, the Navy's anti-ballistic component) will
require little more than a software upgrade. Not to mention anything
as big as a ship pretty much laughs off an energy weapon.
3. It takes a lot of missile to sink a modern ship. You'd be likelier
to succeed with a ballistic torpedo--but that gets you into some hefty
reentry requirements.


How do you "reasonably harden" a space craft? You can not hide it.

Sure you can. NRO does it all the time. Build of stealth materials,
change orbital positions frequently.

Couldn't it be shot down by an energy weapon on earth, which could be
hidden until fired?

Tom Merkle

. A single reasonably hardened orbital platform with
an energy weapon or even just overgrown lawn darts could render every
surface naval vessel obsolete and vulnerable.

It's baloney anyway, because
1. You'd need an extensive network of satellites, due to the facts of
orbital motion.
2. Existing Aegis ships already have the radar capability to track and
shoot down stuff that's way up--enough that the changes required for
THAD (Theatre Area Defense, the Navy's anti-ballistic component) will
require little more than a software upgrade. Not to mention anything
as big as a ship pretty much laughs off an energy weapon.
3. It takes a lot of missile to sink a modern ship. You'd be likelier
to succeed with a ballistic torpedo--but that gets you into some hefty
reentry requirements.


How do you "reasonably harden" a space craft? You can not hide it.

Sure you can. NRO does it all the time. Build of stealth materials,
change orbital positions frequently.

Cool. I didn't know that. But once if fires its weapon it will no
longer he hidden, seems to me anyway.


Couldn't it be shot down by an energy weapon on earth, which could be
hidden until fired?

Tom Merkle

In article ,
Steve Dufour wrote:
Sure you can. NRO does it all the time. Build of stealth materials,
change orbital positions frequently.

Cool. I didn't know that. But once if fires its weapon it will no
longer he hidden, seems to me anyway.

A common problem with stealth systems. (In particular, a notorious
problem for submarines -- they are very hard to find until they actually
*do* something, at which time their location is momentarily obvious.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

On 23 Nov 2003 07:08:13 -0800, (Steve Dufour)
wrote:

How do you "reasonably harden" a space craft? You can not hide it.

Sure you can. NRO does it all the time. Build of stealth materials,
change orbital positions frequently.

Cool. I didn't know that. But once if fires its weapon it will no
longer he hidden, seems to me anyway.


Heck, for some weapons it won't even be there after firing, anyway.

SCO delenda est.
adress is partially sdrawkcab.

On 23 Nov 2003 07:08:13 -0800, (Steve Dufour)
wrote:

How do you "reasonably harden" a space craft? You can not hide it.

Sure you can. NRO does it all the time. Build of stealth materials,
change orbital positions frequently.

Cool. I didn't know that. But once if fires its weapon it will no
longer he hidden, seems to me anyway.

By then, you may not care. And it may not take long to hide it again.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Eric Chomko wrote:
We were defeated on 9-11? I thought we were attacked by 19 radical suicide
bombers that took advantage of our system and used our own commercial
airplanes against us as flying missiles?

Actually, the defeat came just afterward. ... The defeat was the
massive over-reaction of hysterical, poorly-thought-out, useless,
intrusive "security" measures --
... The goal of terrorism is ... to disrupt ... society. The ... US in
particular did ... the terrorists' work for them, due to poor leadership.

Which is all the more striking when you consider that the *same* leaders
did exactly the *right* thing, resulting in a major *victory*, on the
external front: attacking Al-Queda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and its
despicable government, and stomping them flat.

The problem is that the latter victory has not stopped Al-Queda
terrorism. Lacking complete victory, which may not be possible,
our leaders are left with only two options: 1) intrusive
security measures or 2) fight on the terrorists terms (which
means targeting civilians on purpose in response to attacks on
U.S. civilians). Unless it obliterates Al-Queda, which is
unlikely, the U.S. will eventually have to resort to the latter
option - as it did in previous wars. Our leaders aren't ready
to take that step yet.

- Ed Kyle

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: We were defeated on 9-11? I thought we were attacked by 19 radical suicide
: bombers that took advantage of our system and used our own commercial
: airplanes against us as flying missiles?

: Actually, the defeat came just afterward. The attacks themselves could
: not reasonably have been prevented, and *by the standards of warfare* took
: a relatively small toll. The defeat was the massive over-reaction of
: hysterical, poorly-thought-out, useless, intrusive "security" measures --
: many of which we're still living with -- which was *exactly* what the
: terrorists wanted. The goal of terrorism is not to kill people, but to
: disrupt their society. The West in general and the US in particular did
: (and are still doing) the terrorists' work for them, due to poor leadership.

: Which is all the more striking when you consider that the *same* leaders
: did exactly the *right* thing, resulting in a major *victory*, on the
: external front: attacking Al-Queda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and its
: despicable government, and stomping them flat.

Aren't they rallying again? And is bin Laden dead or not?

Eric


: --
: MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
: pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |

TKalbfus ) wrote:
: I fail to see how arms or the military could have prevented the attacks.
:
: Eric

: Two stinger missiles launched from the towers could have shot down both planes.

And the debris field in NYC would have been less how?

: The Pentagon should have been bristling with weapons as the headquarters of the
: US military, I don't know why it was treated as just an office building.

I think that the planes were going to have to be disabled way before they
got near any of their targets. Something on the order of the last plane in
PA.

Eric

: Tom