Yep, Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis. It's already been found in U.S. stocks and boycotts have already been issued. The beef industry in America is particularly adept (ask Oprah about this) at covering up issues that make them look bad. So if there was a terrorist attack like this we'd likely never hear about it until it was much too late.

I too question the newsworthyness of this story, but deffinitely not the validity. As an Air Force flightcrew member I have been warned throughout the course of my career about the use of lasers. Do terrorists poses the technology to make these things? No, but the former Soviet Union HAD them and we all know where all of the USSR's Cold War surplus of stuff has gone... Oh wait, no we don't cause they have sold it off to anyone with some cash.

You still haven't explained why there is a Geneva Convention Protocol on it, if it's as silly as you say.

Speaking of understanding, can you accept the concept that if the public is informed of a very feasible means of terrorist attack, that the public might be more likely to report suspicious activities of that nature to the authorities?

Otherwise, Bush/US haters would have a field day claiming that "the government was asleep at the switch/withheld vital information, etc., ad nauseum.

Hrrm... I didn't know Heathkit made a laser-tracking system.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...tion-headlines
---
FBI Probing Laser Directed Into Jet's Cockpit
Wednesday, December 29, 2004


STORIES
•
Terrorists May Use Lasers to Down Planes
CLEVELAND — Authorities are investigating a mysterious laser beam that was directed into the cockpit of a commercial jet traveling at more than 8,500 feet.

The beam appeared Monday when the plane was about 15 miles from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (search), the FBI said.

"It was in there for several seconds like [the plane] was being tracked," FBI agent Robert Hawk said.

The pilot was able to land the plane, and air traffic controllers used radar to determine the laser came from a residential area in suburban Warrensville Heights.

Hawk said the laser had to have been fairly sophisticated to track a plane traveling at that altitude. Authorities had no other leads, and are investigating whether the incident was a prank or if there was a more sinister motive.

Federal officials have expressed concern about terrorists using laser beams, which can distract or temporarily blind a pilot. ...continued online...
---

How does RADAR track a laser?

Nice link. My local news also reported the two incidents of lasers in cockpits of flights over Colorado.

Time for a review:


Locobot? Manx? Are these just more Bush/Cheney scare tactics?

I have to agree with sob here. Stompy, you are being a little too dismissive.

A few thoughts:

it should be obvious to all that such a laser could be located anywhere within the pilots' visual range from the cockpit. If he can see you, then you can hit his eyes with a laser. Of course, the farther away you are, the harder it will be to aim, so your best shot is going to be on approach.

I voted for Kerry, so please don't accuse me of being an apologist, but I think all this crap about alarmist terror warnings is hypocritical. YOu can question the timing (and I do), but you can't question the release of the information. Put yourself in the administration's position, if you will. You capture an al Qaeda operative or uncover some al Qaeda documents and find out they have been studying a particular attack. What would you do? If you don't release it as a warning to police, etc., and the attack is used, do you think people will say "well, it's ok that they knew this was possible and didn't tell anyone, b/c they knew not to freak everyone out with every possible type of attack"

In fact, knowing that they have no choice but to release the information, if I were a terrorist I would keep documents suggesting I'd studied every kind of attack under the sun just so as to keep people afraid. Keeping people afraid is exactly my goal, and all the better if I can make the administration do my work for me.

finally, this is 20/02 hindsight, of course, but it is now clear that such an attack is entirely plausible, so clearly you were wrong in saying it was highly improbable, etc. Next time, feel free to say you think something improbable, but acknowledge that you could be mistaken.

There's a post in the general discussion area, and also on fark.com (I know bad source) of rampant laser usuage against airplanes.

balderdash,

actually, what you need to do is differentiate between probability and plausability. Stompy doens't have a problem discerning the two.

Plausibility is whether something can happen. Stompy said he realized that it could happen.

Probability is whether something will happen, or how often it might occur in a given number of instances in a population.

Stompy claims that these incidents are not very likely to occur, not that it is unable to occur, but that we should be worried about threats and incidents that are more likely (far more likely, in fact) than these in terms of our safety.

What is he mistaken about?

Whoops, I didn't know this was here, otherwise I wouldn't have started the thread in General Discussion. Honestly, I thought this was a brand new story when I posted it.

Gosh, I really had no idea what the difference was between probability and plausibility. Thanks for clearing that up.

Are you really so pedantic?

I think you are looking back at Stompy's posts with rose-tinted glasses.

Yes, I happen to have chosen his use of the term "highly improbable" as an example of how Stompy dismissed this as an issue, and yes, I suppose that opened me up to the fairly silly critique you made above.

However...

Stompy was clearly ridiculing anyone who took this seriously. Yes, he/she said it could happen, but he also made it quite clear that he/she thought it had about an equal chance of success as me shooting a 747 pilot in the eye with a BB gun. From the ground. He/She refused to even consider that such an attack was a serious concern.

SOB's post contains a nice set of excerpts. Please read that again to refresh your memory. Even better, read all of Stompy's posts for the full sense of tone.

In case you missed it, my point has very little to do with the difference between plausibility and probability. It has to do with Stompy's dismissive attitude toward something that turned out to be a legitimate concern.

Thanks.

Edit: one more note: Stompy's problem was not whether he/she was right or wrong. It was about tone. I happen to agree with the point that people should focus on attacks that are more likely to occur, but Stompy could have made it in a far less dismissive tone.

Here is how I would have done it:

Yes, I suppose you could blind a pilot with a laser beam from the ground, but it seems to me like that would be far too difficult to pull off. Plus, unless you can treat the windows in some way to block the laser beams, I don't seem much you can do to defend against it. I think we would be better served to focus on attacks that are more easily carried out and that we can do something to prevent.

I think more people will die this year because of car accidents then they will because of laser beams being shot at planes. Thats just my guess. I think more people will die this year of being struck by lightning than laser beams being shot at planes... I just see it as highly improbable. Especially since most of the landing is controlled by the plane it's self. And this would require blinding 2 piolets. The equipment to do this is highly sophesticated and would be diffuclt to move around without someone noticing. My guess is we have some childern doing pranks and because it got in the media more are doing it now.

More people will die in car accidents this year than died in the WTC attack. It doesn't make you feel any better if you're on the plane.


Right and wrong. The equipment is available, and at least this instance appears to have been a "prank."

Link

If we didn't have a legal means to arrest this guy before the Patriot Act, it would seem that it's a law whose time has come.