It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Homeland Ministry Plans Raytheon "Ray Guns" at Airports

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Homeland Ministry Plans Raytheon "Ray Guns" at Airports


www.blacklistednews.com

The DHS, affectionately called the “Ministry” here because it resembles something out of Orwell’s famous novel, wants to fit airports with ray guns. I kid you not. “The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will consider fitting high-power microwave electropulse rayguns at US airports, in order to defend against the threat of terrorists firing portable anti-aircraft missiles at airliners,” reports Lewis Page for The Register.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.theregister.co.uk
www.truthnews.us




posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
What a scary thought. They are going to fit airports with the new 'ray guns'. Who are they going to let control these things? If it is anyone like the current screeners we have, we are in big trouble.
I have to agree with Kurt Nimmo here. It does sound like a big waste of funds in order to just try and make billions more. I find it very hard to believe that someone is going to fire a missile launcher at an airplane. If they do not allow nipple piercings to get through security, I think it next to impossible to get a rocket launcher anywhere near an airport let alone close enough to take down an airliner.


www.blacklistednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
It's called Vigilant Eagle. They're nowhere near deployment stage yet. They're proposing a possible live fire test of a scaled down version of it next year. The only two elements being assessed right now are the command and control system, and missile warning system. It's being PROPOSED as an alternative to the missile defense systems fitted on planes. The airlines aren't interested in paying for them, or putting more weight on the planes.

As for getting near an airport to fire a missile, it's as easy as walking across the street. Perimeter security is nonexistant, and you don't have to be ON the airport to fire the missile. A Stinger missile has a range of 5 miles. And it's travelling MUCH faster than any airplane will be. They can be within about three miles of the target and hit it.

[edit on 4/5/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
There is one way to put a halt to all this, and that is to simply not fly.

Unless there's an emergency, we should all take alternative methods..you will see that the airlines will raise up and stop all this government nonsense.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Generally, SAMs can be fired from beyond the perimeter of the airport.
Most airports have viewing areas. At Sydney airport in Australia they come down so low that a weak toss of a stone would hit the aircraft.
Put simply, if you can accurately hit a plane with lasers, chances are you can accurately fire MANPADs at it as well.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   


It's called Vigilant Eagle.

Thanks for pointing that out. (sarcasm)




As for getting near an airport to fire a missile, it's as easy as walking across the street. Perimeter security is nonexistant, and you don't have to be ON the airport to fire the missile.

That is too general a statement to make. Around the international airport near me, there is tons of perimeter security. We have county sheriff's office and State Trooper headquarters and Army reserve depot directly adjacent to the airport. There is constant perimeter traffic by all of these agencies. I tend to believe that if a guy is simply crossing the street with a STINGER on his shoulder, something will be done about it and in a hurry.

It just seems to be ridiculous to me. To even arm our airports like this is just another way to make everyone afraid of flying. And as stated in the article, don't you think we would have seen an attack like this already? If it is so easy to use a missile launcher and hit a plane, why not try it already?

[edit on 4/5/2008 by palehorse23]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
First the Shock bracelets, now this..."Fly aboard sadist airlines!"

Seriously, this is getting beyond ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
And as stated in the article, don't you think we would have seen an attack like this already? If it is so easy to use a missile launcher and hit a plane, why not try it already?


It has happened: Assassination of Habyarimana and Ntaryamira



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


I am talking in regards to the US as the article states. Dealing with Al-Qaeda here in the US. Not arguing it happening abroad.
But for me, it boils down to the hype of defense against terrorist attacks here at home. This is going to be used as a reason to prevent another 9/11 tragedy. As with most other new "defense mechanisms" have already been labeled.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
Thanks for pointing that out. (sarcasm)


I'm terribly sorry that I thought I'd point the name out for those that didn't read the article.
Horribly rude of me.



That is too general a statement to make. Around the international airport near me, there is tons of perimeter security. We have county sheriff's office and State Trooper headquarters and Army reserve depot directly adjacent to the airport. There is constant perimeter traffic by all of these agencies. I tend to believe that if a guy is simply crossing the street with a STINGER on his shoulder, something will be done about it and in a hurry.

It just seems to be ridiculous to me. To even arm our airports like this is just another way to make everyone afraid of flying. And as stated in the article, don't you think we would have seen an attack like this already? If it is so easy to use a missile launcher and hit a plane, why not try it already?


Well gee, probably because you aren't going to be walking across the street with a Stinger.
It's called a METAPHOR. All they would have to do is sit in a van, wait for a plane to take off, pop the doors, shoot, hop in the van, and drive off and they're gone.

MOST of the airports I have been to or worked at had nonexistant perimeter security. They MIGHT have had an occasional roving patrol, but that was it. Hardly any of them have sherriff offices and army depots right there.

They HAVE shot missiles at passenger or private planes. They just haven't done it in the US. Just because it hasn't happened here yet doesn't mean that it isn't happening or it can't happen.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Not trying to get personal with you. If people can't read the article, they are lazy.
I know it was a metaphor. Just an amusing one to me that's all.
It hasn't happened yet because it isn't practical, IMO. Why do you think there was 9/11? They are beyond using a missile to shoot down a plane. It is all about hijacking.
I just do not want to pay for another "system" they probably will never serve its intended purpose. All I am saying is that there is much more they can do with the millions this will cost. How about giving some of it to our foot soldiers that are fighting overseas?



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
You think it's not practical to nail a 747-400 taking off with 400 people on board? A pair of MANPADS into one of those and everyone is dead. It's cheap, and it can be done and the cell probably get away. Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it hasn't been planned for.

[edit on 4/5/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
youtube.com...

Won't happen? That's one of SEVERAL reports of what have appeared to be missiles fired at aircraft that were taking off. I say appeared because they flew like missiles, but no one got a good enough look at them to tell if they were or not.

This particular instance it MAY have been a military missile, but the USAF and the Navy both say it wasn't theirs.

[edit on 4/5/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


No, I do not think it is practical. Sorry, I will not budge on this. It just doesn't seem realistic to keep handing out this ridiculous defense contracts to these companies under false pretenses of the "War on Terror".
Don't you think attempts would be happening on more of a regular basis if it was that easy and practical? Then, I could see the reasoning behind this Raytheon contract.
The reports are what "appear" to be missiles. Don't you think you would know for sure if someone fired a missile at a plane approaching or leaving an airport? It would be all over the news in a heartbeat if it were real and there would be witnesses. And you can bet your bottom dollar we would be getting to the bottom of it in a hurry.

[edit on 4/5/2008 by palehorse23]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 


So you want to wait until it happens because such events have not officially been well publicized to your liking in the US. The when/if it does happen you'll be one of the first to blame the government for it and spin the story eight different ways? Oh ok, I see now.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by palehorse23
 


Unless you actually SEE the missile coming at you, you aren't going to know what it was. In at least once instance the pilots thought it was a rocket someone had launched. All they saw was the smoke trail. That one was shot at an American Airlines plane out of LAX, and fired from the beach.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 08:19 AM
link   
the reason you don't see attacks like this is one. stingers aren't cheap or readily available 2 a person firing one is liable to be noticed and if apprehended is likely to tell about terror cell.




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Stinger missiles are more than readily available. The CIA was basically throwing them at the Afghani mujahideen fighters to help them bring down Soviet helicopter gunships in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
reply to post by palehorse23
 


So you want to wait until it happens because such events have not officially been well publicized to your liking in the US. The when/if it does happen you'll be one of the first to blame the government for it and spin the story eight different ways? Oh ok, I see now.


I am glad you think you know me and my likings. Why would you say I would spin anything? Is that what you learned at West Point?
you have to get all of the facts. Then make your decision. That is how one comes to a conclusion.
I only blame the government for things that they blatantly do. Such as wasting tax dollars on things such as this. Being from the military, of course you would back up anything the government does without questioning any alternative motives. that is what you are taught to do.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Even in Iraq with so much security, insurgents have been successful in launching SAMS at American planes and fighters when leaving and landing towards an airbase. If you think that terrorists or insurgents are incapable of doing such a thing, then you are extremely ignorant.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join