rockets as terrorist weapons

Loading thread data ...
Okay, inquiring minds want to know. Any prominent NAR/ TRA officials/luminaries past/present heavy drug users?
Reply to
Scottso
I usually stay away from these conversations, but I think the original poster does have a point. Naturally there is always a counterpoint and I have provided that at the end of this post as well. It all boils down to the fact that rockets suffer from the "weapon sterotype." People see a rocket and immediately think of an air to air missile, or an ICBM, or a stinger; Something that makes a lot of noise and smoke and fire.
We, as hobbyists, all know that our type of rockets would make horrible terrorist weapons. That is true when you consider the destructive potential of such a device. Any rocket launched would harmlessly bounce off it's target, or miss it completely. We all agree to that.
That bePut yourself in the shoes of somebody who knows nothing of hobby rocketry. To them, a High Power rocket looks downright scary! You all would say "Hogwash!" but once again, you're thinking like an experienced rocketeer. To the average Joe, a 12 foot tall, K-powered rocket is a dangerous and fearsome weapon, even if it is simply a cardboard tube (or fiberglass or carbon or whatever to those of you who are picky). How many of you have had somebody come up to you when you had your rockets on display and say something to the effect of, "that looks dangerous..."
Take that fact and couple it with the smoke, fire and noise of a rocket engine, and you have a recipe for frightening people.
Once again, imagine you are an average, rocketry illiterate person, strolling down the street of "city X." All of a sudden, you look up to see what looks like a missile, being trailed by a plume of fire and smoke, roaring like a bat out of hell. Your first thought will be "we're under attack!" A series of coordinated launches like these would make it seem like a war scene. Sure, nothing terrible would come of it (no deaths or injuries or severe property damage), but it may scare people long enough to be effective.
People don't look at cars and immediately think "dangerous weapon." Unfortunately, the same can't be said about rockets. The news media and other such groups fill the livingrooms of millions of viewers with images of bombs, missiles, and warheads, all being propelled by rockets. That is why people cringe and give weird looks when they see you carrying any rocket longer than 24 inches.
The point he is making is that, when used properly, rockets can cause FEAR! This is essentially synonomous with the word terror (I just know that somebody will post the webster dictionary definitions of both words and try to prove me wrong using nitpicky details). The terrorists want to cause FEAR! Killing people causes even more FEAR in addition to the terror induced by the attack method!
Notice how he didn't say "murder weapons."
Cars are murder weapons. The bombs they carry are murder weapons. The explosions they make are the terror weapons. If the people think they are under attack, they will get scared and call for action. Commonly referred to as "fight or flight" tactics.
To provide a counterpoint, this is probably THE biggest reason that keeps the smart terrorists from using rockets as a method of attack. You won't kill anybody or hit anything, so the terror will not be maximized. Would it be effective enough to cause enough fear of rockets to end our hobby? We can only speculate as to whether the answer is yes or no.
Reply to
Brian McDermott
That was not the point scotty. The point is that there are many other methods to kill and destroy things other than rockets which would be far more lethal and harder to catch. The drug issue was an example of what happens when government tries to eliminate a problem. Too often, government worsens the problem.
Reply to
Arnold Roquerre
Welcome to nanny government. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol in the early 20th century, but did create a large crime base around it. Drugs used to be just as legal as alcohol. Drug prohibition has been just as big a failure, with just as big a criminal base of violators.
It's time for the government to stop trying to regulate everyones life for their own good. The ONLY time big brother has any right to regulate such activities is when they infringe on the rights of OTHERS (or when minors are involved). Drive while impared, and go to jail. Fatalities from accidents caused by DUI should be first degree murder.
Sounds awful Libertarian, doesn't it?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
David Weinshenker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:
Why not punish AFTER a crime or loss has occurred? "Innocent until proven guilty"??
I suspect a lot of people drive or have driven while "impaired" and yet never cause any accidents or losses.
BTW,If you hurt someone while NOT "impaired",it's still a crime. (and a loss)
Reply to
Jim Yanik
That has remained and grown since, like any industry.
And social costs.
It is? I bet they disagree :)
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Jerry asked:
I mean, if you make the choice to drive while intoxicated (drugs or alcohol) and end up injuring or killing someone, it should be dealt with harshly. Not used as an excuse for a lighter sentence. It's a choice, not an accident.
Reply to
RayDunakin
I think if you make the choice to drive while you're too old and scatterbrained to tell the gas pedal from the brake in a hurry, or you just had an argument with someone you love, or you're just a klutz, and you end up injuring or killing somebody, you should be dealt with just the same. If we feel that it's so important that automobile driving be done perfectly safely that we want to criminalize all error and any hint of diminished capacity, let's just be impartial about it.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
Jerry Irvine wrote in news:01rocket- snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:
Well,I was just presenting the "libertarian" viewpoint.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
It is a crime to put anothers life, health, or property at risk. Even if you don't run into anything this time. It is a more serious crime when an incident actually happens.
Having an unforseen medical emergency is not a crime, bt can lead to an accident. Neither is striking some road debris that blows a tire and causes an accident.
Engaging in high risk activities is your business. Doing so in a way that endangers ME is MY business.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.