Rockets as WMD

Jim, I think you lack understanding of the actual use of such a deployment method. It doesn't even rank in the the top 50% of the most practical methods of deployment of such, of which are more _sure_ to have a successful impact. So making a statement such as yours does draw attention/resistance from many. It may "sound" highly feasable, but in reality, when _all_ of the logistics are considered, it would be stupid to use a consumer rocket, when so many other "more sure" methods are available (this of course ignoring the fact that being a terrorist is already inherently stupid, evil, and all that). Using a consumer rocket to attempt such an act is stupid.

It is a lot like saying APCP is explosive, just because it make a loud noise and goes "whoosh!", but is not explosive as tested.

IMO your use of the word "-unlikely-" says little. You would at least be a little more accurate if you said that the "public (mis-)impression" is that a model rocket can do such, therefore we have a problem.

~Duane "bring on the edjumacashun" Phillips.

Did you mention your skepticism to your trainers? It's guys like you who question the official training they receive that can put an end to the bizzarre overkill associated with nearly every aspect of the War On Terror.

As for myself, I have been writing my Congressman and making my voice heard regarding the USA Patriot Act. Another US Government action that did more to aid the terrorists against Americans than prevent terrorism.

Bin Laden isn't the only one we as American citizens need to watch out for. Our own law enforcement and government is about as terroristic and apathetic toward the avergage American's way of life as is Bin Laden.

"Duane Phillips" wrote in news:ILgyb.363811$Tr4.1076975@attbi_s03:

In your opinion.I beg to differ. You seem to think that because a method is not the best way,or 'efficient',that it would not be used.There are reasons why such a method(MR or LMR) might be used,such as availability,ease of use,simplicity.

Also, Actually,some terrorists are quite intelligent and capable. And very driven by ideology. To assume otherwise would be stupid.

"Might try" does not equal "effective application".

Never, NEVER let the light of facts obscure your opinion.

If one pays attention to the actual history of useage of rocketry (and other "delivery" systems) around the globe, the _level_of_sophistication_, and the related outcomes, and compare that with consumer rocketry (and similar design), and the _history_ of its' _attempted_ use, one may just learn something.

Personally, I hope the terrorists maintain thinking like this of yours... I will sleep easier.

~ Duane Phillips.

Not only is it not the "best" way, it's one of the worst and certainly not the most obvious. In any case, what is the point of your constant attempts to inaccurately portray sport rocketry as a national security threat? What possible good do you think this will achieve???

am I hearing this right? Ray is asking for a justification for someone else's fallacious post?

Can you say "hypocrite" ?

- iz

RayDunak> In any case, what is the point of your constant attempts to

Iz wrote:

"Duane Phillips" wrote in news:WXryb.265241$275.951355@attbi_s53:

This is what I said;"You seem to think that because a method is not the best way,or 'efficient',that it would not be used."

Well,you seem to keep on insisting that the method be 'effective' by some unstated standard. YOUR standards for effectiveness may be very different that a terrorist's.

Sleep well,Duane.

The point is that the *actual* threat via consumer rocketry is next to nill, due to reasons both in delivery and dispersal, additionally proven by failed attempts and research, yet you want to try to notify everyone that it is something we all hiding from, and don't want to hear or address.

IT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. Apparently not that you noticed, or understood.

So back to an earlier post in this thread:

Jim Yanik wrote in news:Xns94416BAD04591jyanikkuanet@204.117.192.21:

Why bother with a rocket when you could just drive by and let it blow out the window?

That's the problem with all these "sport rocket as terrorist weapon" scenarios. For almost any scenario you can offer, there's a cheaper, easier, more effective one that uses a car or a truck, a slingshot, or if you want to get exotic, a helium balloon or an RC modfel airplane.

len.

Jim Yanik wrote in news:Xns9441D6E49BE8Bjyanikkuanet@204.117.192.21:

No, we're claiming that there are so many more easier, cheaper and more effective mechanisms that the use of sport rocketry as a terrorist weapon is just plain stupid. And before you counter that terrorists could be stupid, that's not the point. I repeat, easier, cheaper, more effective.

len.

David Weinshenker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:

WMD used to mean nuclear weapons, and sometimes *extremely* large chemical explosive weapons. Biological and chemical weapons were referred to as "unconventional" weapons (which also included wmd/nuclear weapons).

Chemical and biological weapons do not "destroy" anything. They kill. They have little if any value when used against infrastructure.

WMD was coopted by the Bush administration for its scariness and to avoid having to make "subtle" distinctions between different kinds of weapons.

len.

Leonard Fehskens wrote in news:Xns94448276C1085lenfehskenshpcom@16.105.248.153:

Better to drop it from a low altitude and drift down then "let it blow out the window". I believe radio-controlled model aircraft are under scrutiny,also.

Leonard Fehskens wrote in news:Xns944484A921C8Dlenfehskenshpcom@16.105.248.153:

They sure can destroy a population. People are more valuable than any building or "infrastructure".

Tom Clancy,in his fictional book "Red Storm Rising" discussed bio and chemical weapons,and they can be MORE lethal than nuclear weapons.

Only in developed countries.

Or better yet, with no permit required it just takes the correct gun to do the job.

dispersion would occur near the ground instead of being blown into oblivion by the winds, direction is guaranteed, unlike a rocket........several rounds in several seconds......easily concealed.......way better than t he car window or a rocket.....the gun route looks to be the winner!

>

Besides, he's already claimed that terrorists are _not_ stupid, so it would be contradictory at best if he now claimed they are.

that was an excellent book, IMO

they came close to wiping out humanity, plus or minus a few dozen or so

and they didn't use a single high power hobby rocket ;)

- iz

Jim Yanik wrote:n

LOL! POINT!!!

~ Duane Phillips.