So which is more troubling... - Page 6 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

RockyBalboa · 10-12-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

In fairness to hoya, I imagine many citizens ask the same question, innocently enough. If hoya were to be perfectly candid, hoya might admit a visceral dislike for Bush that anything he can critisize relative to the Administration, makes him look at a matter cynically. There is much to be cynical about.

However, hoya's cynicism centers on the mistaken belief that government can cure all problems.

I imagine significant numbers of citizens believe NORAD has the technical capacity to know, and then to inform its chief automatically and immediately, that X number of planes, private and commercial, are straying into dangerous civilian areas.

If people were aware of the daily number of near misses, they would be horrified.

And interestingly, easterners believe, because it's New York City, everybody should be concerned. BTW, did anybody see the blurb on CB which stated that the flight instructer was an LDS man from Walnut Creek California, leaving a wife and children?

To answer hoya's question, it is NOT feasible to police the skies as hoya might believe.

And it is not feasible for the chief to be advised of every mishap instantly, especially given verification procedures and chain of command. So I actually am glad the chief keeps informed through the public commerical sites as well as his government sources, as I believe in many instances, commercial works better and more quickly than governmental.

True, but the funny thing is even after Hoya get's shown why he's wrong and proven wrong he's too arrogant and prideful to admit that he's wrong or have his eyes opened enough that his questions were answered

I'm ignorant of many things and enjoy being educated on a particular topic I know little or nothing about. There's nothing wrong with admitting that.

Cali Coug · 10-12-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

You do believe that government is more powerful than it is and that government can solve more problems than it can. Obviously setting up a strawman draws your attention.

I do not believe we can protect our financial capitol. It is more than government could ever do, given the resources necessary and we do not possess the requisite technology.

For example what the jets going to do, assuming their weapons will accurately target a low tech prop plane? Should they fire knowing if they miss, their missles will explode upon a neighboring building?

Why should NORAD become immediately aware of all planes over Manhattan? Are you stating it should become no flyzone?

Are you a pilot?

Have you ever started flight school?

Have you participated in the military? If so, you must be aware of the chain of command.

Are you aware of the intricacies of radar?

Why do you believe the myth that we are capable of knowing what's out there, or that notices should travel up our chain of command instantaneously?

I believe "government is more powerful than it is?" I appreciate your newly found expertise on what I believe. I will add that to the long list of other items you are an expert on. I do appreciate the candor that you are setting up straw men.

Why should Norad know about planes over Manhattan? First, there is some pretty strong precedent showing what can happen with planes flying over Manhattan. Second, it is the economic capital of the world. We should be paying very close attention to what happens in NYC airspace. I am not stating it should be a no fly zone and have never implied as much. I am saying a plane at under 500 feet zooming the skies of Manhattan should trigger some alarms. Is it even possible to fly at that height without eventually hitting something in Manhattan?

Am I a pilot? Why? Are you arguing only pilots may have an opinion on this matter? Are you a poltician? If not, perhaps you shouldn't have an opinion on politics. Are you a movie critic? If not, perhaps you shouldn't have an opinion on movies. Are you an NFL quarterback? If not, perhaps you shouldn't have an opinion on the quality of NFL quarterbacks. In short, adopting such a ridiculous approach would effectively stop most of the communication in this nation.

Archaea · 10-12-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Why should Norad know about planes over Manhattan? First, there is some pretty strong precedent showing what can happen with planes flying over Manhattan. Second, it is the economic capital of the world. We should be paying very close attention to what happens in NYC airspace. I am not stating it should be a no fly zone and have never implied as much. I am saying a plane at under 500 feet zooming the skies of Manhattan should trigger some alarms. Is it even possible to fly at that height without eventually hitting something in Manhattan?

Number one, it sounded as if the plane came down from above in distress, so the descent was sudden and unexpected. Even if you start from several thousand feet or more above Manhattan, if you are in a critical descent mode, time can literally fly by. The time involved is too small and the numbers of aircraft up there are amazing. You simply are uninformed of the immensity of the task you are requesting. Based on what I know, I imagine other than making it all a no flyzone with most of our fighter, helicopter and other aircraft constantly patrolling only Manhattan, securing the skies is impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Am I a pilot? Why? Are you arguing only pilots may have an opinion on this matter? Are you a poltician? If not, perhaps you shouldn't have an opinion on politics. Are you a movie critic? If not, perhaps you shouldn't have an opinion on movies. Are you an NFL quarterback? If not, perhaps you shouldn't have an opinion on the quality of NFL quarterbacks. In short, adopting such a ridiculous approach would effectively stop most of the communication in this nation.

No you are entitled to an opinion. But because you have no aviation, security or military expertise, it would explain why you believe we should know what we can't know and why "patrolling" the skies might be believable to one so unfamiliar with the logistics involved, that is all.

I imagine many other bright people are equally uninformed, and that concerns me that the level of expectations for the military and for our defenses is so unreasonable. It's so much harder to know what's going on up there and it isn't feasible for NORAD chief to be advised on every distressed aircraft anywhere in any city.

Cali Coug · 10-12-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Number one, it sounded as if the plane came down from above in distress, so the descent was sudden and unexpected. Even if you start from several thousand feet or more above Manhattan, if you are in a critical descent mode, time can literally fly by. The time involved is too small and the numbers of aircraft up there are amazing. You simply are uninformed of the immensity of the task you are requesting. Based on what I know, I imagine other than making it all a no flyzone with most of our fighter, helicopter and other aircraft constantly patrolling only Manhattan, securing the skies is impossible.

No you are entitled to an opinion. But because you have no aviation, security or military expertise, it would explain why you believe we should know what we can't know and why "patrolling" the skies might be believable to one so unfamiliar with the logistics involved, that is all.

I imagine many other bright people are equally uninformed, and that concerns me that the level of expectations for the military and for our defenses is so unreasonable. It's so much harder to know what's going on up there and it isn't feasible for NORAD chief to be advised on every distressed aircraft anywhere in any city.

Once again, we are not talking about anywhere in any city. We are talking about one of the two most strategically important cities in the US.

Cali Coug · 10-12-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

True, but the funny thing is even after Hoya get's shown why he's wrong and proven wrong he's too arrogant and prideful to admit that he's wrong or have his eyes opened enough that his questions were answered

I'm ignorant of many things and enjoy being educated on a particular topic I know little or nothing about. There's nothing wrong with admitting that.

I have noted your receptiveness to opposing arguments and interest in receiving an education. I do find it odd that you tell most of the people supplying those opposing opinions to burn in hell. Not a high opinion of teachers?

RockyBalboa · 10-12-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I have noted your receptiveness to opposing arguments and interest in receiving an education. I do find it odd that you tell most of the people supplying those opposing opinions to burn in hell. Not a high opinion of teachers?

Thanks for proving me right.