Waterboarding

[Drail]

I would love to reply to this thread but I have apparently been banned. Every time I type a post longer than this one I am told I do not have permission to post. So I guess I am not welcome here anymore. Good bye.

 

[Paul]

Honestly, if they are not U.S. citizens, i support them doing whatever they feel necessary to get information

 

[dburkhead]

Shooting down a jetliner isn't what Hollywood would have you believe. You don't have to shove a missle in the ass of the jet to stop it or force it to the ground. Put some 20mm bullet holes it the tailfin would be a good incentive to force it to land. Shooting the wing is too risky as it COULD ignite the jet fuel. Although, a couple shots to the engine would likely just malfunction the engine and force them to land aswell. If that were to fail, I have enough confidence in our piolts to put rounds into the cockpit as a final resort. All but the engine and cockpit shot would deter any civilian piolt to continue on course. If it were hijackers hell bent on destruction, only the last two options would deter them. Otherwise you have no choice but to send rockets down range.

Of course this is just my brainstorming. I've studied aviation most of my life and these seem to be the only forceful viable options that don't involve inevitable death and destruction unless need be.

That is a whole lot harder than you seem to think it is. It's far more difficult than the "shoot to wound" idea that routinely gets a drubbing when suggested.

 

[Indiana Ima]

... The easy attack that we have not experienced in mass is the lone gunman/bomber who walks into a chucky cheese and takes out a birthday party. ...

not that exactly, but i remember a lot of similar shootings in fast food restaurants in the 1980s. mostly in mcdonalds. i still hate eating in them with the children, to tell you the truth. iirc they were all, to an incident, perpetrated by US citizens. they were not intended as organized acts of terrorism, but as individual acts of mayhem and mass murder. we didn't stop them, they simply went out of fashion, it seems. unfortunately what came into fashion in their place is school shootings.

to sum up, my point is that my husband is right.

 

[Panama]

to sum up, my point is that my husband is right.

My good upbringing taught me, "Never argue with another mans VERY loyal and loving wife"

I am NO fool.

 

[SavageEagle]

That is a whole lot harder than you seem to think it is. It's far more difficult than the "shoot to wound" idea that routinely gets a drubbing when suggested.

Trust me, I understand that. But I have seen what Air Force Piolts are capable of (NOT movie piolts either) and I fully believe it would bepretty easy to do. Maybe not the cockpit idea, but the tailfin for sure. The engine is a risky bet because it COULD ignite the fuel of course, but possible still. If it's known that the plane is low on fuel (I.E. coast to coast flight) wing shots are a possiblity in hopes of hitting the wiring for the flaps and ailerons, or with older jets, the hydraulics, and making it very difficult to fly. That could bring it down all together, but a better option than a missle.

Population area is a big factor. Less populated areas go for whats been described. Major city area, missles, in hopes of complete explosion. Smaller debris would be better than one big plane going boom on the ground or in a building.

These are the options that the piolts COULD have taken during 9/11 had they been there on time and had time to react.

Again, this was just brainstorming based on what I know of the Air Force Pre-9/11. A lot has changed since then I'm sure.

 

[SavageEagle]

My good upbringing taught me, "Never argue with another mans VERY loyal and loving wife"

I am NO fool.

You may argue with mine all you want.

 

[Panama]

You may argue with mine all you want.

NO WAY DUDE!

I rarely argue with my own wife, much less yours or anybody else's, age has a way of making you smarter, at least when it comes to that anyway!
You just can't win those arguments!
They control 100% of a specific commodity we men are interested in acquiring!

 

[dburkhead]

Trust me, I understand that. But I have seen what Air Force Piolts are capable of (NOT movie piolts either) and I fully believe it would bepretty easy to do.

What you see Air Force Pilots do, and the kind of "called shot" you are talking about are entirely different issues. Yes, I've seen the Thunderbirds and the Blue Angels (and several other countries demonstration teams). However, precision formation aerobatics is a completely different skill from aerial gunnery. The pilots have good sights, good electronics, and good flying skills. What they don't have (sad to say) is a lot of experience at "live fire" air to air gunnery. This is not the fault of the pilots, or even really the heirarchy at the air force. It's due to the fact that the kind of practice involved is extremely expensive. You need target drones (no shooting live rounds at manned aircraft) which are expensive and, if the gunnery is good enough to do those "called shots" they are going to shoot down a multi-million dollar drone every time they line up on it.

Imagine how good you'd be at shooting if you spent a lot of money on top quality sights, did a lot of "tactical" training with blanks, and did a lot of dry fire, but rarely if ever actually fired a round at a target.

 

[SavageEagle]

With the avionics they had in the mid nineties these types of shot were possible. They could target certain parts of the plane. These were in response to the threat of Soviet bombers and other threats such as ICBMs. While the jet couldn't fly behind to catch the ICBM, they had a one-shot chance to target the small, fast moving missle and shoot it. It wasn't reliable but I'm sure strides have been taken since then.

While they can't practice IRL, simulators have gone leaps and bounds. When I was 15 ('96-97)I got to sit in Flight sim from the Air Force. The graphics and technolody they used then were at least 5-6 years ahead of what WE had. Microsofts flight sim looked like a regular Atari video game after that.

I'm just saying with skilled piolts and the technology they MUST have now it's more than just a possible plan.

Heaven Forbid it ever has to be done. Losing any lives is bad, but I would rather 100-200 go than a few thousand or more.

 

[dburkhead]

With the avionics they had in the mid nineties these types of shot were possible. They could target certain parts of the plane. These were in response to the threat of Soviet bombers and other threats such as ICBMs. While the jet couldn't fly behind to catch the ICBM, they had a one-shot chance to target the small, fast moving missle and shoot it. It wasn't reliable but I'm sure strides have been taken since then.

While they can't practice IRL, simulators have gone leaps and bounds. When I was 15 ('96-97)I got to sit in Flight sim from the Air Force. The graphics and technolody they used then were at least 5-6 years ahead of what WE had. Microsofts flight sim looked like a regular Atari video game after that.

I'm just saying with skilled piolts and the technology they MUST have now it's more than just a possible plan.

Heaven Forbid it ever has to be done. Losing any lives is bad, but I would rather 100-200 go than a few thousand or more.

Too many of your examples are apples and oranges. For one thing, the cannon on those aircraft equipped for them fire 3000 rounds per minute for a reason: the hopes that a few of the rounds will hit the target.

I'd really like to know where you heard this "targeting different parts of a plane" idea. I mean, heat seeking missiles will target the engines, but that's because they're the hottest part of the plane. Aside from that, this is not something I've seen in any of the industry sources I've read.

And missiles are a different matter. They home on the target, but what they home on is a particular characteristic (mainly radar reflection or heat).

As for ICBM's, that's utter nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you're misremembering (at best) what you read about that. For one thing, even if you had a plane in the air, by the time you could get to cannon range of the missile it would all be over.

As for simulators try playing a "deer hunter" computer game as your training for actual hunting sometime. Simulators are a valuable tool but, in the end, there are too many things that aren't well simulated that play an important roll in aerial combat and aerial gunnery.

The reason we started schools like Top Gun and Red Flag is that there really is no substitute for hand-on-stick, in the air, actual experience.

There's only a very narrow window in the amount and type of damage between "able to complete the mission" (given a 9/11 type mission) and "plane is coming down with all aboard it." Hitting that window is somewhere between winning the Powerball and parting the Red Sea on the "miracle" scale.

 

[CarmelHP]

As for ICBM's, that's utter nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you're misremembering (at best) what you read about that. For one thing, even if you had a plane in the air, by the time you could get to cannon range of the missile it would all be over.

Righto, an ICBM will outrun cannon rounds, and the attacking plane, by a significant factor. The only chance to shoot it is head-on by a cannon that will fill it's path with projectiles as it approaches the target like the Phalanx system, and then only if it is meant to hit the target and not airburst. I don't see it happening.

 

[SavageEagle]

Too many of your examples are apples and oranges. For one thing, the cannon on those aircraft equipped for them fire 3000 rounds per minute for a reason: the hopes that a few of the rounds will hit the target.

I'd really like to know where you heard this "targeting different parts of a plane" idea. I mean, heat seeking missiles will target the engines, but that's because they're the hottest part of the plane. Aside from that, this is not something I've seen in any of the industry sources I've read.

I'd rather not discuss that. Believe me or don't.

As for ICBM's, that's utter nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you're misremembering (at best) what you read about that. For one thing, even if you had a plane in the air, by the time you could get to cannon range of the missile it would all be over.

Yea, if your coming at it from the side. If you have a good front angle on it, it IS possible to stop it with cannon. They have had in development Air-to-Air missles that are kinetic energy missiles for the sole purpose of stopping other types of missles. That's a whole nuther thing in itself. We are so off topic here.

There's only a very narrow window in the amount and type of damage between "able to complete the mission" (given a 9/11 type mission) and "plane is coming down with all aboard it." Hitting that window is somewhere between winning the Powerball and parting the Red Sea on the "miracle" scale.

Ah, back on topic. Had they actually been sharing information and heeded the warnings as laid out in the 9/11 CR, there would have been no need for any of this. They could have caught one of them or all of them and stopped the attacks in the first place. Had they still gotten in the air, and piolts would have been scrambled as planned, they COULD have brought the planes down in time. I would rather them shoot them down over NYC than let the plane slam full force into a building.

 

[dburkhead]

I'd rather not discuss that. Believe me or don't.

Gotcha.

Yea, if your coming at it from the side. If you have a good front angle on it, it IS possible to stop it with cannon.

It's also possible to run straight into a brick wall and then simply appear on the other side.

Not something I would bet on, however.

They have had in development Air-to-Air missles that are kinetic energy missiles for the sole purpose of stopping other types of missles. That's a whole nuther thing in itself. We are so off topic here.

I suspect I am more aware of what's going on in that field than you are and it has nothing to do with the question at hand about whether a fighter pilot could "shoot to wound" on an aircraft."

Ah, back on topic. Had they actually been sharing information and heeded the warnings as laid out in the 9/11 CR, there would have been no need for any of this. They could have caught one of them or all of them and stopped the attacks in the first place. Had they still gotten in the air, and piolts would have been scrambled as planned, they COULD have brought the planes down in time. I would rather them shoot them down over NYC than let the plane slam full force into a building.

Logical fallacy. "Argument contrary to fact." These are things that might have happened. When I shoot at a target, and see that my bullet is low and to the left, then I can say that if I simply held POA a bit high and right (or had adjusted the sights that way) that the next round will be right through the X ring. It might be. Then again... Did I mention that shot was taken with a Mosin Nagant with mismatched numbers, a damaged crown, and at 500 yards?

What would have happened if things were different is always open to question.

 

[SavageEagle]

Well, I'm glad to know you have great confidence in our military pilots!

As far as the kinetic missile. That was about missile to missile convo to supplement the rest of that talk. Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you.

And since you're the expert here, are we doomed to another attack or can it be stopped?

 

[dburkhead]

Well, I'm glad to know you have great confidence in our military pilots!

As far as the kinetic missile. That was about missile to missile convo to supplement the rest of that talk. Sorry I wasn't clear enough for you.

And since you're the expert here, are we doomed to another attack or can it be stopped?

Confidence has to be based on reality otherwise it's just wishful thinking.

Doomed to another attack (presumably like 9/11)? Not so long as the folk in the airplane believe that "just cooperate" is just another way to die along with a bunch of other innocent people. Unfortunately, the government and media is so keen on "let the professionals handle it" that it probably won't be too much longer before that shield against such an attack is worn away.

As I, and others, have said many times however, you really can't stop somebody from bringing down a plane if they're willing to die in the process. You can, however, prevent them from using it as a giant cruise missile.

I've given my view on what "airline security" should be uptopic and elsewhere.

 

[printcraft]

.......... By completely tossing out the constitution for illegal torture at guantanamo? ........

On that, the United States Constitution applies to United States citizens - period.

What is illegal torture?

 

[SavageEagle]

I think this should be interesting.

 

[jeremy]

On that, the United States Constitution applies to United States citizens - period.

What is illegal torture?

Exactly what everyone forgets. If you are not a citizen or lawful resident of this country then OUR constitution does not apply to you.

And everybody in GITMO is classified as unlawful combatants per the Geneva Convention. And as such they are NOT POW's. They are actually being treated better than we have ever treated someone of this category of combatants.

 

[RaiseTheBlackFlag]

What is illegal torture?

yeah u got me.