From: bondage@frontiernet.net   
      
   Sander Vesik wrote:   
   >   
   > Joann Evans  wrote:   
   >   
   > >    But military C-130 crews also have to consider that someone may be   
   > > out to actively shoot them down one day.   
   >   
   > space debris does that for space vehicles - esp ones with wings.   
   >   
   > >   
   > >    Even with recent events, except for possibly adding some   
   > > countermeasures for shoulder-fired terrorist weapons, this isn't a   
   >                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
   > The weapons are not in any particular way exclusive or specific to   
   > terrorists so its dishonest to call them "shoulder-fired terrorist   
   > weapons".   
      
      Correct. But they are starting to be increasingly used by   
   terroriists. Thus the prospect of countermeasures on civil aircraft.   
      
   > How do you classify stringers, btw? They have used by   
   > terrorists to down far more aircarft than the ones in use in Iraq.   
      
      It's a 'terrorist weapon' if a terrorist uses it. This is exactly why   
   I did not simply say 'shoulder fired weapons.'   
      
   > > normal concern for most cargo aircraft...or even the shuttle.   
   >   
   > It appears to be a concern for normal passenger aircraft occasionaly.   
      
      Right, but we still don't equip them with ejection systems. Greg's   
   point was that the C-130 is an example of a cargo plane that has this   
   feature. *My* point was that it's still a military aircraft whose   
   designers and operators know is mre likely to be operated in situations   
   where it may come under fire, as opposed to ejection primairily   
   motivated by catastrophic failure.   
      
   > --   
   >         Sander   
   >   
   > +++ Out of cheese error +++   
      
      
   --   
      
      You know what to remove, to reply....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)