trc@houca.UUCP (09/13/83)
How about arming all airliners flying near Russia with some purely self-defense weapon? For example, a missile and launcher that would only be activated when the plane was crashing or had been blown to bits, thus releasing the weapon. (There would be a jettison mechanism to handle air-emergencies.) Tom Craver houca!trc
rpk@ecsvax.UUCP (09/14/83)
Actually, arming commercial airplanes wouldn't be a bad idea. I understand that the military has a few types of IR homing missles that they would like to scrap so that they could buy the new improved versions. These could be sold to the airlines (which would give them at least a fighting chance of surviving USSR attacks). Since many of these missles have never been tested under combat conditions, arming airlines could provide valuable feedback for the military on the missle's performance. The only problem that I can see with this idea is that it would only be a matter of time before the 'rate wars' now conducted on the ground with advertisments would esculate into air-to-air combat amongst the various airlines... At least this would put the thrill back into cross-country air travel. -Dick (...decvax!duke!ecsvax!rpk)
leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter) (09/14/83)
There are two problems with arming airliners: (a) The practical. Military planes are designed for air combat; civilian planes are not. Military planes have a hard time hitting other military planes; the chances of being able to do anything useful in the way of self defense is essentially nil. A fighter can fly at two to three times the speed of an airliner, probably has close to 10 times the available acceleration, is a MUCH smaller radar target to begin with (both from sheer size and deli- berate design) and has electronic protection equipment and probably some armor to boot. Not to mention the fact that a weapon system that would only become available for use after a plane had been hit, during a time when the crew would have all its attention on trying to keep the plane flying to a safe landing spot, would never get used anyway. (Civilian airliners are pretty tough. Remember that the KAL plane that was hit in 1978 landed safely.) (b) The legal. I don't know the exact statement of the laws involved, but civilian airliners, like ships, if armed fall into one of two catagories: pirates, who anyone can shoot down at will; and privateers, who are legally not civilian but military craft. (The difference depends on whether the armaments were authorized by a recognized state.) So...all in all, not a practical idea. (I'll admit I thought of it, too.) Now, if we made a policy of flying a fighter or two along to protect these flights - staying in international airspace, of course - that would be a different story (although it would be very expensive to do...). -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
jj@rabbit.UUCP (09/14/83)
"Arm airliners" What nonsense. That's the ONE way to ensure that ALL planes that violate ANYONE's national boundries are shot down. I'm sorry that I didn't see any :-) in the articles that suggest it. An armed airliner is nothing more than a military plane, and would be treated as such. BULL
shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) (09/14/83)
Great! A new arms race! And we could put machine-gun turrets on buses
and pistols in stewardesses' pockets (or maybe strapped to their legs)
to foil hijackers! Arm everyone to the teeth!
Actually, I'm surprised Tom didn't put a :-) after his article.
net.philosphy and net.politics readers are familiar with his declarations
about 'rationality', but arming airliners not for true self-defense,
but just to get off a "dying shot", is one of the most irrational
ideas I've heard all week (mind you, just *this* week). Perhaps
a more rational course of action would be for airline passengers
to boycott KAL until it stops overflying hostile territory...
stan the lep hacker
{harpo|hplabs}!utah-cs!shebstim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney) (09/15/83)
I thought it was clear that the person who submitted this
outlandish suggestion (arming passenger airliners) was not being
serious. I am GLAD that he didn't put one of those moronic ":-)"
symbols on the article. If your article is funny, it doesn't need the
":-)"; if it does need the ":-)", it isn't funny and should never have
been posted.
That reminds me of an article in my college newspaper after I left
the editorial staff. They ran an article that had about six inches
(10-point type, 1.5 to 2 inch-wide columns, if I recall correctly)
of initial disclaimer, warning you that if you weren't a person who
appreciated satire, then maybe you shouldn't read the following,
because it is satire, not meant to be taken seriously, and we aren't
really saying the things we mean to say, and.... Apparently, that
wasn't enough -- they also made the first word of the headline
"Satire" (in 48-point type or so) and ran an underlined 10-point
teaser above the headline, also a satire warning. Of course, this
completely ruined any chance of humorous impact, even if the
satire part of the article hadn't been so poorly written. The
":-)" and its variants do the same, albeit to a lesser degree.
___________
Tim Maroney
duke!unc!tim (USENET)
tim.unc@udel-relay (ARPA)
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillmcewan@uiucdcs.UUCP (09/16/83)
#R:houca:-39100:uiucdcs:9700069:000:336 uiucdcs!mcewan Sep 15 15:56:00 1983 While the idea of arming commercial flights that are planning to fly into hostile territory so they so they can get a shot off at their attacker as they go down in flames has its charms, I've thought of a way that the plane and passengers can actually SURVIVE the flight - don't make unauthorized flights into someone else's airspace!!
stevesu@bronze.UUCP (Steve Summit) (09/16/83)
Maybe I misinterpreted it, but I assumed right away that the initial article about arming airliners was tongue-in-cheek, even without a :-) . Why do so many of the hackers and flamers on this net take everything so seriously? Steve Summit
preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/20/83)
#R:houca:-39100:uicsl:5400024:000:933
uicsl!preece Sep 19 11:47:00 1983
I am GLAD that he didn't put one of those moronic ":-)"
symbols on the article. If your article is funny, it doesn't need the
":-)"; if it does need the ":-)", it isn't funny and should never have
been posted.
----------
I can agree that the presence of the joke symbol vitiates the humor, if
only slightly, but I have less faith than tim in the ability of the
net's writers to generate unambiguous humor. The article in question (about
arming airliners) was well within the bounds of serious comments we've
seen here and the author has, in fact, followed it up with a supporting
note that implies that the original was at most whimsical and certainly
not sarcastic.
The ittle joke bug (":-)") helps avoids misunderstandings and should
be used, if discreetly, for anything short of python-esque absurdity.
scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
(If i understand the situation now, this should be in net.followup, i hope).german@uiucuxc.UUCP (09/22/83)
#R:houca:-39100:uiucuxc:3300043:000:367 uiucuxc!german Sep 16 01:11:00 1983 (-: Ahh, but he stated a purely a defensive weapon. How about a thermonuclear warhead with a deadman trigger! Armed only above a certain altitude and set to go off if the plane is destroyed. If a Russian pilot has a few megatons go off in his face he will think twice about shooting down another airliner! :-) Greg German uiucdcs!uiucuxc!german
chongo@nsc.uucp (Curt Noll) (09/22/83)
what about the right to arm soviet bears? :-) chongo /\../\ p.s. :-) means that it is a joke