Homeland Security: Giving Schumer & Steve Israel Their Due
We may be inching a step closer to having all of out commercial airliners able to defend themselves against missile attack, and its a good thing at that. As the New York Times reports today (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/national/29missiles.html?hp&ex=1117339200&en=be0104f77fcd1777&ei=5094&partner=homepage), the Department of Homeland Security will now be testing the devices on three aircraft. Both Northrop Grumman and Boeing have been developing competing models for these systems, and they seem to be making good progress. Most surprising for me, though, was that the push through Congress to get these devices installed has been led by, among others, Senator Schumer (D-NY) and Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY). Well, Congressman Israel is no surprise -- he's my local Congressman and I've voted for him twice because of his positions on National Security among other things. As far as Schumer, though, I must say I'm pleasantly surprised.
I'm often incredibly cynical of Democrats Schumer, but I think its important to point out also when they do well. Here, he has.
I'm often incredibly cynical of Democrats Schumer, but I think its important to point out also when they do well. Here, he has.
posted by Dennis at
4:08 PM
1 Comments:
Well, personally I don't think that business interests really should matter so much in such decisions, since it really is ambiguous how people might react. Already people are too scared to fly because of some of these risks; if we can demonstrate that a passenger plane cannot be taken down with these shoulder fired missiles -- or at least that taking down a plane with one is infinitely less likely -- then it might bolster confidence in flying even after a failed attempt.
If terrorists know our civilian planes are equipped with this technology, though, they might also be less likely to take the effort to attempt a shoulder fired missile attack given the risks of getting caught compared with the reduced probability of taking down a plane. That doesn't mean they won't try any attacks, but it would seem to greatly reduce this one vulnerability both in terms of deterring such attacks and in terms of stopping any that are attempted.
And even if the market is rattled even when a missile is fired at a commerical jet and misses, it seems clear that this effect would be substantially less than if the missile took down the plane. And, regardless of the effect on the industry, the people in the planes would be saved. The job of the government is to protect its citizens lives first, not the industry. I think these systems could do both.
Finally, I think the cost of trying to secure any location where these missiles might be used -- any where within a 50 mile radius of any civilian airport -- would be enormous. I do not personally think its possible to ensure that there will be no shoulder fired missiles within a 50 mile radius of any airport, regardless of how much we spend and how intensive the searches. It makes more sense to me, then, to devalue the missiles themselves by sending the message that our planes have their own defenses and are not vulnerable to attack.
That said, this clearly does not excuse Boxer and Schumer from all the other things they have done that I disagree with. But it is at least a concrete effort to make America more secure, whether you think it is worth the cost or not, that should be recognized.
By
Dennis, at 8:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home