I see in the news today that a hotel in Iraq was attacked with a terrorist's home built Multiple Launch Rocket System. While this one looked a little better than the unit tied to the back of a donkey last year (the only other attack I've seen by terrorists that has used a Rocket Propelled Improved Explosive Device), it was still a total failure. IIRC, the donkey unit last year had most of the rockets fail to fire and there were no injuries, the attack today had only 2 out of 8 rockets actually fire and they only caused 2 injuries and zero deaths.
So let's break it down a bit for the 2 or 3 guys around here to keep saying we should allow the Feds to impose "some" restrictions on our rockets for the sake of stopping terrorists. In a lawless location such as Iraq where explosives and all the trimmings to make rockets and brew up or salvage rocket propellants are plenty, there are very seldom any attempts to use an improvised rocket propelled device as a weapon, this is of course excluding the use of all the commercially made RPGs complements of the communists. Further, in the cases where they have been used, they have a less than 25% ignition rate (Copperheads?) and an even worse record for inflicting any serious damage or casualties. Basically, unguided missiles are worthless and except in large-scale military applications, they don't carry enough warhead to cause the damage these guys are seeking.
So I ask, why would any "terrorists" even consider making a Rocket Propelled Improvised Explosive Device in the USA for use as a terrorist weapon? As amateur rocket scientists, how many of you have difficulties getting your large rockets to successfully light and fly straight? How many better ways of delivering an Improvised Explosive Device can you think of? I am privy to a lot of FBI and DHS alerts and bulletins and such, and I have yet to see one that even mentions rockets as a terrorist weapon. They have many, many better methods at their disposal. One major point that we hear over and over again is that the "real" terrorists have one major exploitable weakness in their character and that is that they are not willing to suffer a failure. In that, the major thrust of any security system is to make the target look hard to hit, whether it is or not. Spending all the time and resources setting up for an attack in the US only to have 25% of your rockets ignite, then have them basically miss the target and give some poor passerby a nose bleed would put you to shame and reflect very poorly on your terrorist organization. It's just not going to happen.
Finally, and I think most importantly, rocketry has a valid scientific and technological purpose in the private sector as evidenced by recent events (SS1). If America submits to any unnecessary restrictions on rockets, it will slow our technological progress on rocket-related subjects in the future. That alone is enough reason to fight for expanding the availability of rocket components and reducing the restrictions on their use that are in place now in locations such as California. And getting kids involved in rocketry can get them interesting in learning about science, keep them busy with a valid hobby activity, and possibly even keep them from getting involved in criminal activities. What could be more important than that?
Thanks for your time, Scott