every reader in the WORLD needs to read this!!

[whatthefunk]

Youre thinking in to this too much. Why exactly would air travel stop?

[woodsmoke]

Because of the panic that would set in for;

a) the general flying public
b) people who ship things by air.

The planes of 9-11 were flown by a person. That is why we are now griping about whole body scanners and why the "left" was foaming at the mouth about Bush' warrantless wiretaps and are saying nothing about Obama doubling down on it.

But that was a person in a plane. All we have to do is keep such people off the planes.

But if the first plane can be taken down by a missile, even if the perp is captured; then the second can be taken down.

All it takes is a jihadi that has spent two years travelling the world completely off grid to get near an airport.

People will go ballistic.

And the dread will be setting in.

You remember the quiet skies over the U.S. after the first 9-11.

And you probably, for the first months after planes were again allowed in the sky, at least "looked up" when you heard one go overhead.

A plane taken down by someone standing on the ground will bring about a whole different reaction in the public's mind.

And, since there are "at least" ten thousand of these things loose....

When the second plane is brought down, people will stop flying and business will stop shipping by air.

Asymmetrical warfare does not win by killing soldiers in the field so much as it wins by creating:

a) fear/dread
b) fatigue.... "bring the brave soldiers home and spend the money on ... "

And Hillary looks out over the Atlantic and shakes her fist and rails against an unseen foe that may not even BE there....

But the people of France would never again be "sure" that the next missile is not going to be fired on Tuesday afternoon at 3:17 p.m. at a plane landing in Buenos Aires.

just my thinking.

woodsmoke

[whatthefunk]

Thats ridiculous.

[Jonas]

Would you pay an extra dollar on your ticket price for peace of mind when flying on a commercial jet? Then insist your airlines install this on their planes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Guardian

So you mean that in order to be safe from weapons created by a industry who say their effort is to keep you safe, is to invest even more in the same industry who created the threat in the first place? All weapons that are "flooding" the the world come from the same countries who "fight" the so called terrorism.

I'd rather be dead then pay more to those warmongers.

" TIV of arms exports from the top 10 largest exporters, 2011-2011"

Rank 2011-2011	Rank 2010-2010	Supplier	2011
1	1	USA	9984
2	2	Russia	7874
3	6	France	2437
4	4	China	1356
5	3	Germany (FRG)	1206
6	5	UK	1070
7	8	Italy	1046
8	12	Spain	927
9	7	Sweden	686
10	11	Netherlands	538

http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/toplist.php

These above are the real crooks in the world, earning money on death and bloodshed.

If we would just get the frack off of other nation's lawns (and out of their oil fields), wouldn't most of these "threats" against the US evaporate?

Yes, and I'm sure there be enough money spare for medical aid to get me and the rest of the smokers around the world to quit

b.r

Jonas

[NickStone]

...If I lived on an island, I would be really worried about this. if air traffic basically disappears, then the island is then dependant upon ocean going vessels.

The economy of the island could collapse...

Britain is an Island nation. During the Victorian times we, as a nation, had an empire and traded with most of the world using nothing more than shipping and railways. No aircraft as they're weren't invented then. As a result, at the time, Britain was a "super power".

[tuxdude]

Further more, nickstonefan, this island nation of Britain still relies on the sea for delivery of a lot of our resources and food. I wish more people would understand this and realise the consequence of our ever shrinking navy (both merchant and royal). We would truly be up the creek without a paddle if the english channel was blockaded along with the west coast ports.

[woodsmoke]

Hi
Unfortunately the several of the previous posts were deflections into motives of the U.S.

The situation with the missiles is not "who is at fault".

For all we know the missiles were sold to Libya by Russia or the Krupp Arms Works of Germany.

EDIT: they are Russian made "Grinch".

Placeing blame is not going to help another country that is brought to it's knees because a surface to air missile was used to destroy the top of the tallest building in the world.

Let us consider the "butterfly effect".

That is one thing that all of the "smart people" pat their backs about knowing that the stupid people (that means 'other' people) do not know about.

One butterfly flapping on another continent brings about catastrophic change in another continent; whether it be climatological, economical, political, literary, artistic...

A small thing happning in one place affects "seemingly out of proportion" something in another place.

If one butterfly can cause such an effect, what would be the effect of ten thousand butterflies?

But, even that is not "the point".

The launching of even one of an unknown number of shoulder launched missiles at Big Ben would create an effect in the populace of Britain, and the rest of the world, that is "out of proportion" to the act.

Because there would be "fear and dread" that would enter the mind of every person on the planet which has access to a telly or a radio or the internet as to...

"Since there were ten to twenty thousand of the things "loose"....just how many are still left out there? And when will one be launched at a building or an airplane or a train, or a ship, that has one of my loved ones in it? Or the Queen, or the President, or the mailman who delivers the mail."

The point of asymmetrical warfare is that one action paralyzes a whole other group of people.

Again, blaming the U.S. is a deflection from the thesis. The missiles may have been made by China.

We are now in what Einstein mused about(and one must remember that Einstein came to the U.S. so that Nazi Germany would NOT get the bomb).

This is not nuclear proliferation, but actual "ability for an unknown to strike at a distance" proliferation.

And again, the point of the post is that if the situation is correct, and nobody has shown that it is not...

Then every country on the earth is at risk.

There are, as of this post, 836 "international airports" on the earth.

So, to average that out, there possibly 20 missiles available "per airport".

But, all that is needed is one, or two, missiles to bring the system to a standstill except for heavy flights that could use the technology mentioned in a previous post.

If the man had said there were 500 missiles missing, I would probably not have even given it a second thought because it would be so hard for "random motion" to somehow get one to a place where an airplane could probably be brought down at land or take off.

ten to twenty THOUSAND missiles is such huge number that even "random motion" would place one near an airport of some size.

And then the POSSIBILITY of another is the real problem.

Asymetrical warfare.

woodsmoke

[NickStone]

Further more, nickstonefan, this island nation of Britain still relies on the sea for delivery of a lot of our resources and food. I wish more people would understand this and realise the consequence of our ever shrinking navy (both merchant and royal). We would truly be up the creek without a paddle if the english channel was blockaded along with the west coast ports.

Yes I know that we still rely on shipping for both imports and exports (mostly imports these days) and so with many nations around the world. Most cargo is transported by the sea and not by air.

I also agree with you regarding the possible problems we may have without an effective navy, but you try telling that to the "Tories" who are hell bent on reducing spending for public services and defence to "reduce the national debt" when in reality they simply want to reduce spending because they hate spending money on public services and are using the national debt as a cover to enforce the cuts.

Oops! I'm being political here. Are we allowed to be political?

[NickStone]

The launching of even one of an unknown number of shoulder launched missiles at Big Ben would create an effect in the populace of Britain, and the rest of the world, that is "out of proportion" to the act.

Because there would be "fear and dread" that would enter the mind of every person on the planet which has access to a telly or a radio or the internet as to...

You do know that Big Ben is the name of the bell inside the tower not the tower itself. In fact to commemorate the 60th anniversary of our monarch the tower was renamed Elizabeth tower.

Also, I think there would be a lot more anger aimed at an organisation who attacked the houses of Parliament rather than a clock tower. But in certain sections of society I think they'd be pleased that the politicians were attacked LOL.

[NickStone]

Woodsmoke. In your other thread on James Bond, I was going to recommend a series of novels by Vince Flynn for you to read about a guy recruited to the CIA. But I think if you read them your level of paranoia would go through the roof! LOL

[Snowhog]

But in certain sections of society I think they'd be pleased that the politicians were attacked LOL.

Breaking News - BBC News
As reported moments ago, an explosion of unknown origin ripped through Parliament, killing fully a third of those in attendance. A Londoner, when asked what he thought about the incident, replied "A third you say? That's a start."
[Disclaimer: Raw Political Humor Only]

[woodsmoke]

LOL

Welllll, what some people would call "paranoia" others would call a) being prepared, b) bringing to the attention of others a possibly dangerous situation.

If it was ten, or fifty or a hundred misiles then yes, I would agree as to "paranoia", but the numbers are tens of thousands.

This from CNN, a news organization which I think nobody would think is a "right leaning" situation:

The quote from Human Rights Watch, again no friend of "the conservative".

Peter Bouckaert, Human Rights Watch emergencies director, told CNN he has seen the same pattern in armories looted elsewhere in Libya, noting that "in every city we arrive, the first thing to disappear are the surface-to-air missiles."

He said such missiles can fetch many thousands of dollars on the black market.

"We are talking about some 20,000 surface-to-air missiles in all of Libya, and I've seen cars packed with them." he said.

"They could turn all of North Africa into a no-fly zone."

I am merely advocating that there is no longer a situation of " OVER THERE so let's all stick our heads in the ground and not worry".

empty warehouses, stuffed into cars, black market.... black market can sell to anyone ...

any.....WHERE.....

What about a right wing, skin head, Christian fundamentalist, ethno-phobic, Bible totin', gun carrying wingnut who made a coupla hundred thousand in speculation on the stockmarket buying one from the black market to shoot at a Democratic Senator flying coach on American Airlines?

Does that make things any different?

The point is not "who" did what but how many are loose.

[Jonas]

Hi
Unfortunately the several of the previous posts were deflections into motives of the U.S.

The situation with the missiles is not "who is at fault".

For all we know the missiles were sold to Libya by Russia or the Krupp Arms Works of Germany.

Hi

Unfortunately you miss the point Woodsmoke. You see a list with U.S.A on top and you take the blame, while I see a list of arms dealers who benefit on the scare tactics of arming to be "prepared". (note worthy is that Sweden and Netherlands are by capita larger arms exporters then USA, Russia and China. Sweden is by population smaller then NY City).

The launching of even one of an unknown number of shoulder launched missiles at Big Ben would create an effect in the populace of Britain, and the rest of the world, that is "out of proportion" to the act.

Because there would be "fear and dread" that would enter the mind of every person on the planet which has access to a telly or a radio or the internet as to...
/.../

The point of asymmetrical warfare is that one action paralyzes a whole other group of people.

This is the point - You and the news stations launch this missile every time you bring this threat up - I'm sorry to say Woodsmoke, but you have let yourself become the "useful idiot", along with the news channels, and this is not about left-right wing discussion. Ask yourself who gains on these news, "fear and dread" and the war on terror.


Like steveriley said - smoking is far more dangerous then "terrorism" - crunch those numbers and lets discuss real world wide public safety, until then I'll leave this thread.

b.r

Jonas

[woodsmoke]

Hi Jonas.

Thanks very much for the thoughtful reply.

You have your opinion and I have mine.

But, respectfully, your posts were not about "the situation" but they were about "blaming somebody", that this country produced these and that country produced those.


That I am a "useful idiot", which in debate is called "killing the messenger" seems to fly in the face of the simple fact that....

Human Rights Watch and I are saying the same thing.

Please note that I applaud Kucinich, a left leaning Democrat if there ever was one, who TRIED to force this to national attention.

I am not assigning "blame".

However, even someone with the gravitas of Kucinich does not seem to get this the attention that one would think that it deserves.

Is the lack of reportage by the mainstream media an example of:

a) not wanting to panic the populace?
b) trying to deflect the public's notice from the opinion that Pres. Obama did not want to put boots on the ground to secure the weapons when he is in election mode?

“We were quite disappointed after talking to (Pres. Obama) administration officials … that nothing more was done, even about the [storage] facilities in Tripoli, which are unsecured now,” said Peter Bouckaert, director of emergencies at left-of-centre group Human Rights Watch.

‘“The major impediment [to action] is that the administration doesn’t want ‘boots on the ground,’” he said.

Please notice that I did not post the above statement before, and it was reported on 27 Sept 2012

I am not assigning "blame".

As, I said previously, one could "go back" to assign blame to any of the last ten or fifteen Presidents, depending upon political inclination.

I am trying to raise consciousness on a world wide level, this is, after all a world wide forum.

It is my assumption that many folks who frequent this forum are "movers and shakers" in a variety of fields, and hopefully, they will attempt to raise this concern with people who may not have heard the information.

Am I going to stop flying or recommend that others stop flying?

No, but I am trying to "raise awareness" that if "something" is not done, both long and short term, that this situation is going to come to haunt us relatively quickly.

The question for the reader then becomes what kind of policy will best ameliroate what is sure to be a very bad situation.

And....NO>>> I am not attempting to create a debate on this forum. Debate here will not solve anything.

But, it might be that a reader of this thread,,who would not hear of it in "their media"....

in "any" country may be in a situation to actually affect policy in "that" country either directly or indirectly.

if Northern Africa can be made into a "no fly zone", then any country can be made into a no fly zone.

woodsmoke