![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
I disagree. The DC ADIZ provides an opportunity for the military to intercept flights that violate it before they might enter the FRZ within which lethal force may be exercised. If the DC ADIZ (or something similar) did not exist, there would be no opportunity to determine how much of a threat those flights might be, and the military would have no other option but to shoot them down. So while the DC ADIZ does nothing, in my opinion, to make DC more secure, it may provide some measure of mitigating erroneous shoot downs of fellow airmen. You give our enemies far too little credit if you really believe this. Every single violation of the DC ADIZ to date has been erroneous - some grossly so (see "Hayden Shaeffer") while most were not. The ADIZ does nothing but separate those following the rules from those not following them. Assuming for the moment that Al Qaeda (or some similar outfit) were to use airplanes to cause mischief here in DC, I'd exect them to follow the rules right up to the last minute. Really, how hard do you think it would be to locate a vetted pilot, kidnap them and extract the information needed to penetrate the FRZ? You mean like the CIA did in Peru: You keep bringing that up like the CIA shot down the plane. They didn't. The Peruvians did after the CIA operatives told them *not* to shoot (admittedly after providing tracking/guidance for the Peruvians). Perhaps this incident made it obvious to our government, that it might be prudent to attempt to ascertain if the aircraft in question is 'friend or foe' _before_ shooting it down, and inspired the DC ADIZ. I think it's far more likely that various security agencies saw an opportunity to justify their budget requests. I agree; the DC ADIZ does nothing to make DC more secure. If this is the case, why do you keep arguing *for* the ADIZ? Don't get me wrong. I don't believe the FRZ is an effective measure against all hypothetical attacks on DC. I haven't seen any hypothetical attack where the FRZ is an effective countermeasure. Further, I feel that our government putting it's citizens in the cross hairs is repugnant in a free society. Yet you argue for just that when you want fighters intercepting errant aircraft in the ADIZ. What would you propose in place of the DC ADIZ and FRZ? Considering that *nobody* is claiming knowledge of any imminent attack, nothing. I'm not opposed to *temporary* restrictions in times of heightened threat, but most of the rest of the country now enjoys the same freedoms they had prior to 9/11 and February 2003 while those of us under the DC veil are still denied those freedoms - even in the absence of a heightened threat. By the way, where are those regular justifications for the ADIZ the FAA was mandated to provide to Congress? -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com ____________________ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NAS and associated computer system | Newps | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 12th 04 05:12 AM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |