Nightmare in Libya: 20,000 Surface-to-Air Missiles Missing

[GeorgeGist]

Source: ABCNews

U.S. officials had once thought there was little chance that terrorists could get their hands on many of the portable surface-to-air missiles that can bring down a commercial jet liner.

But now that calculation is out the window, with officials at a recent secret White House meeting reporting that thousands of them have gone missing in Libya.

"Matching up a terrorist with a shoulder-fired missile, that's our worst nightmare," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D.-California, a member of the Senate's Commerce, Energy and Transportation Committee.
-snip-

Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch first warned about the problem after a trip to Libya six months ago. He took pictures of pickup truckloads of the missiles being carted off during another trip just a few weeks ago.


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nightmare-libya-20000-surface-air-missiles-missing/story?id=14610199

---

What could possibly go wrong?

[truebrit71]

1. When you arm everyone in a room, why act surprised if you wind up getting shot?

Turns out Ike was right about the military-industrial complex....

[Owl]

17. "Turns out Ike was right about the military-industrial complex"... exactly.

[joshcryer]

21. Yep. Why would a country with 6 million people need 20 thousand surface to air missiles?

That's 1 for every 300 people in Libya. It's incredibly insane. I don't think there are that many active military jets in the worlds inventory.

[boppers]

29. Why just military jets?

SAMs work on prop and helicopters, too, including craft that can be multi-purposed.

According to:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/584144.html

There were 118,000 military planes and helicopters in 1995.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Um...because they have enemies...

Big, powerful enemies with airpower.

Are you saying they didn't exist, or that it's some kind of personal failing of Qaddafi to have overbought?

[daleo]

51. Yeah, it's not like they ever got attacked by powerful air forces

Like NATO.

[PacerLJ35]

46. The US MIC didn't sell these...they came from Russia

[Scuba]

2. Wonder how many are US made? Chinese? Russian?

[bvar22]

39. They are Russian.

"Russia has sold countless thousands to Moammar Gadhafi's regime over the years, mainly Strela-2s, also known as SA-7s. But it's not known had many Libya had when fighting broke out there."

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Missing_SAMs_in_Libya_alarms_the_West_999.html

I read elsewhere that most of the missing SAMs were updated variants of the Strela-2 with longer range and a much superior Seeker head that was not so easily fooled by Counter Measures.

"Libya possessed large stocks of Grinch SA-24 and SA-7s shoulder-launched missiles. The Grinch is a much more sophisticated and effective missile than the SA-7. The Grinch is considered similar to the famous Stinger anti-aircraft missile that helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets.

AOL D readers will remember that the White House's top counterterrorism official, John Brennan, made it very clear several weeks ago that the White House worried al Qaeda will get its hands on the missiles. There were already reports then of large numbers of missiles being looted as the Qaddafi regime collapsed."

http://defense.aol.com/2011/09/27/white-house-believes-20-000-sophisticated-missiles-missing-in-li/

"The equipment is believed to be on its way to Sinai or Gaza for use by Palestinian Hamas against Israel.

Included with the missing SAMs are boxes that contained Russian MDM-3 sea mines, like those used by Qaddafi around Libyan ports at the beginning of the NATO led invasion.

Many of Qaddafi's weapons stores were raided and their contents sold to black-marketeers. So many weapons have been sold into the North African market recently that prices have dramatically dropped.

http://www.businessinsider.com/missing-libyan-weapons-are-on-their-way-to-palestinain-hamas-2011-9

There have also been reports of Libyan "Rebels" ties to Al-Qaeda.

[PacerLJ35]

47. Interesting comment...

The Grinch is considered similar to the famous Stinger anti-aircraft missile that helped the Afghans defeat the Soviets.


The SA-24 is quite a bit more capable than the standard Stinger Basics that were given to the Afghans in the 1980s.

[TheWraith]

3. Fearmongering bullshit at its worst. These cannot "bring down a commercial jet liner."

Not unless you're sitting INSIDE the airport waiting for it to land. They have a maximum altitude of 12,000 feet. Jetliners fly at 30,000 to 40,000.

[SnakeEyes]

5. nonsense

I don't think you understand what 12,000 feet is. Do a google image search for at least 10,000 feet and see how high that is. Also, anyone that has flown before knows you don't go from 12,000 to 0 instantly. Generally planes do increments of 1,000 feet. And if you're in a holding pattern, the minimum holding altitude could be lower than 12,000. All they have to do is be anywhere that missile can reach the plane while it's at 12,000 and under.

[TheWraith]

6. I've actually flown aircraft. I think I know what 12,000 feet is.

Average rate of climb puts a plane above that ceiling within 10 minutes after takeoff, and descent is usually equally steep, because it's more fuel efficient to be at higher altitudes.

More to the point, 12,000 feet isn't the only performance limitation on these. They also have a maximum total range of 18,000 feet, altitude plus horizontal travel, so to take out a plane at any significant altitude, you would have to be almost directly underneath it.

These things weren't designed for taking out aircraft at altitude, they were designed for shooting down helicopters and low-flying ground attack jets.

[PurityOfEssence]

8. Fine, so if an airliner is taken down on approach or takeoff, it doesn't count?

Personally, I think that EVERYTHING that comes to pass from our Libyan illegality is the responsibility of the interventionists and this administration's cheerleaders.

Everything that flies will be close to the ground at some point, and many will be in populated areas when that happens. Populated areas are great cover for irregulars: pull over on the side of the road in an approach area and let 'er rip. This is asymmetric warfare, too: many of those pulling the various triggers don't care if they're killed, and many actually want it.

This is a disaster. Poo-poohing it is transparent flak (joke intended) for the zealously-held belief that this was a "good war" and that we know what we're doing.

The real lesson from a purely dispassionate military vantage is that "war on the cheap" defies the very concept of war: it is expensive, and when done cheaply and casually, as this one was, there are dreadful repercussions. The premise that Qaddafi would fall quickly because he had no support was wrong, the premise that a lid could be clamped on this seems to also be wrong.

20,000 stingers/blowpipes/whatevers are on the loose. Only the most bedazzled Obama acolyte could claim that none will cause deaths.

[christx30]

15. I live just on the

other side of the highway from the airport. Air planes fly easily under the 12,000 feet limit of the missiles during landing. They pass about 200 feet over the highway. Someone with a launcher could hide in the forest just across the highway and get a very easy shot off. Then that person would then have a good few minutes to get in his car and have access to 3 or 4 highways to make his escape. There are a lot of airports like this across the US.

Anyone that doubts this... check out Austin Bergstrom Internation Airport just outside Austin, Texas. Look at the large runway on the west side. Now look directly to the north of that. Highway 71 runs on the northern border. North of that? Woods.
Planes typically take off and land to the north of the airport. I see people park out along the shoulders of highway 71 all the time.

[SnakeEyes]

9. You are simply misinformed

These have a history of taking out planes. "at altitude" is misleading as again we are talking about shooting them down when within range which there is ample time.

There is a reason the seatbelt light stays on/off and the pilot's notice of decent/end of climb is awhile after. 10 minutes is a LONG time and distance that a plane can be away from the airport and be with range of these missiles. Blows your argument up. And again, on the landing part, that's if you get to land immediately instead of holding.

They are also accurate up to 2 miles away (10, 560 ft). 18,000 feet is 3.5 miles. The idea they'd have to be right under is nonsense. Certainly wouldn't require your first assertion that they'd have to be at the airport. They are heat seeking making them more effective.

While they may have been designed for the purposes you stated the fact is they are useful for other means, as many weapons are.

[BobbyBoring]

10. How about TWA flight 800?

There are some that believe it was taken out by a SAM and others say they actually saw said SAM before it hit said plane.

[happyslug]

16. When TWA Flight 800 went down it was climbing to 15,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

The problem is you are at the maximum range of these man portable missiles at that range. yes they can be hit at that range, but so can snipers hit people at 2000 yards, just because it is possible does not mean anyone will try.

Furthermore TWA was about 10 miles out to sea when it went down, i.e. about 50,000 from the coast, so way out of range form any land based hand portable missiles. No ships were reported in the area thus hard for such a missile to be fired.

Just pointing out that the Missile theory as far as Flight TWA 800 has been debunked over the years, it raises its ugly head every so often but then debunked again.

Air to Surface missiles could have reached Flight TWA 800, but these missiles are NOT man portable, they are about as large as a good size truck (And need a good size truck to haul them around). These missiles could be tracked and none were tracked by any Radar on that day. Missiles did NOT shot down Flight TWA 800, no matter how much TWA and Boeing would prefer that solution to the fact Flight TWA 800 went down to to poor maintenance by TWA AND an inherent bad design of the internal fuel system of that version of the 747.

[KamaAina]

44. All I know is this

I was living in New Haven, CT at the time, within easy reach of NYC's AM stations. I was listening to some godawful sports show when they guy mentioned there'd been a plane crash nearby. Over to the news station, where I heard a woman who had been walking her dog on the beach. She said that what she saw looked like a mid-air collision between the jet and a small plane. Mind you, this was in the heat of battle, before anyone, least of all someone who was just out walking her dog, had a clue what was going on.

[xrdan]

52. For what it's worth...

as a long time airline mechanic I don't believe the fuel quantity system wiring caused the fuel vapor in the center tank to ignite. Also, none of my peers buy it either.

Dan

[dipsydoodle]

12. Or maybe

taking out a runway just as a plane was landing.

From 1994 : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ira-bombs-on-runway-as-jets-land-mortar-attack-at-heathrow--new-campaign-fear--terrorism-act-renewed-in-commons-1428076.html

[PacerLJ35]

48. I've actually flown aircraft too...

3,200+ hours flying transport-category aircraft...

And I fly below 12K all the time. If you flew enough you'd know that it's quite common for aircraft to be given an intermediate level-off altitude well below 12K. And just for the heck of it...the 12K you read about is primarily for the older Russian-made missiles. The newer ones have capabilities that are in excess of 20,000 feet in some cases depending on the slant range and the type of missile.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. How far away can an airplane be from its point of takeoff before its reaches 12,000 ft?

Seeing as 12,000 feet is more than 2 miles that means someone with one of those missiles could be within an area whose base is at the end of the runway out to 2 miles on the ground. That dangerous areas would contract as the plane flew higher but it's still a lot of territory; over 4 square miles around the airport alone and 10 minutes is a far distance given the speed of aircraft. I don't know what those speeds are as I'm not a pilot but I know how far I can go in a car in 10 minutes driving 60 MPH.

Now multiply that area by every commercial airport in every country that might be targeted with many of those being in built up areas that facilitate hiding.

[PacerLJ35]

54. That's also assuming...

that aircraft climb directly to 12,000+ feet. As a pilot who's flown for many years, I can tell you they often don't climb directly to 12,000 feet. And depending on the length of the trip, many aircraft level off well below that altitude.

[neverforget]

7. These airliners can be shot down on approach to landing or takeoff

All that has to be done is be within range of the takeoff or landing pattern.

[woo me with science]

31. Thousands of surface-to-air missles? Nah, nothing to see here, folks.

[kristopher]

38. Trust Libya with nuclear power says Sarkozy

Trust Libya with nuclear power says Sarkozy
27 Jul 2007




During a meeting with Col Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Mr Sarkozy agreed to help the country with a nuclear-powered project to desalinate seawater. France has Europe's largest civil nuclear power industry and a vital commercial interest in exporting reactors and technology.

Any Libyan reactor could be supplied by Areva, France's leading nuclear energy company. Until he invited international inspectors into Libya in 2003, Col Gaddafi had a covert nuclear weapons programme.

But Mr Sarkozy denied that the new deal came with any risks attached. "Nuclear power is the energy of the future," he said. "If we don't give the energy of the future to the countries of the southern Mediterranean, how will they develop themselves? And if they don't develop, how will we fight terrorism and fanaticism?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1558689/Trust-Libya-with-nuclear-power-says-Sarkozy.html

[sabrina 1]

45. Well, it isn't Qadaffi they have to worry about now. It appears to be

poor 'rebels' we went to rescue. This is a repeat of Afghanistan in the eighties when Al Queda was created by the US and armed.

This situation in Libya will have long term ramifications. It was an insane thing to do to get involved there.

Rather than use diplomacy, they couldn't wait to use up some more bombs and other WMDs so they could buy more. No point in spending all that money on weapons of war if you don't use them. Now they have to be replenished.

However, from the POV of the MIC warmongers, this is probably good news. Now we may have to put 'boots on the ground' in yet another country to find some more weapons.

But maybe we don't have to worry. They are in the hands of the people we went there to protect, right? Surely they would not use them against them against us now?

[bullwinkle428]

40. Are these planes flying at 12,000 feet?

[Xithras]

42. LAX. SFO, Oakland, Laguardia, JFK, DFW, Logan. And on. And on.

Some of the largest airports in the United States are located in urban areas, where a person merely has to find a convenient alley, unattended backyard, or isolated parking lot underneath their flight path. Once found, a dedicated terrorist could spend hours waiting for the "perfect" plane to shoot at. Not only will they get to kill everyone onboard, but if they shoot down an outbound plane that fully fueled aircraft is going to make a hell of a mess when it plows into the developed city.

There's no fearmongering here. These may not bring down a jet at cruising altitude, but that wouldn't be the best shot at maximum casualties anyway. These missiles are a genuine threat to air travel around the world.

Hell, and even outside of the civilian threat...can you imagine what a few thousand of these would do in Afghanistan and Iraq? Our helicopters would be sitting ducks.

[bvar22]

50. Commercial Jetliners descend below 10,000'...

....many, MANY miles before the Runway Thresh Hold which is usually against the fence of an airport perimeter.
There is NO WAY to defend the Commercial Airports in America against these missiles without
a heavily defended and enforced 25 mile radius No Enter Zone around the airport,
and even then, commercial aircraft would need to make Hot Zone Military approaches & descents.

Noise Abatement requires departing commercial jets to use minimum power settings when departing over populated areas that limits their Climb Outs from airports in populated areas, which is most American Commercial Airports.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

56. Wow. That's so off base it's funny.

I'm in chicago near wrigley and planes go over my house all the time at less than 12K. If they are using that specific pattern, they go over all day. (I'm a pilot btw)

[neverforget]

58. Notice how the "pilot" never returned to this thread?

[bongbong]

4. Who could have forseen this?

"This is terrible! Who could have foreseen this? Now we'll need to increase security, pat-downs, inspections, etc, EVEN MORE! Nobody could have predicted this! It looks like we'll have to buy even more weapons, hire even more security guards, and take even more of your liberty away from you! This is terrible! But when you're broke and living under a bridge, you'll be safe! However, you'll be required to go through our new 'Living Under A Bridge Security X Ray System' to take up residence there!"

[bemildred]

11. +1. nt

[bluebuzzard]

18. Who could have foreseen this?

Anybody with a little common sense. All i can hope is some Jihadist doesn't take a shot at an EL AL plane.

[bongbong]

19. Right over your head

I know it went right over your head, but that story, whether it's true or not isn't the real story. The real story is that this event will be added to the pile of fear-mongering that repigs & corporate shills use to remove our Liberty.

"All we have to fear is the loss of fear itself to keep the peons letting us screw them 24x7" - anonymous billionaire repig

[bluebuzzard]

22. Bong

The last I checked the repigs weren’t running the Department of Defense or State Department. Janet Napolitano is a champion of civil rights?
I agree with your implied sarcasm. We’re being set up for another conflict in the Middle East.

[bongbong]

24. Embedded

> The last I checked the repigs weren’t running the Department of Defense or State Department.

Well, in a sense they still are. ex-President Cheney had lots of political appointee positions changed to Civil Service positions in those departments so that people wouldn't change with the change of administration, and then stocked them with repigs.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/31/37200/hersh-cheney-behind/

[plumbob]

25. Yup.

(Ring, ring)

Hello, Global Fear, Inc. How may I direct your call?


Uh, yeah, I need ta talk to someone in your Ratchet Department.


Just one moment, I'll connect you.

(Ring)

Ratchet Department.


Yeah, lissen, Kansas is underarmed right now. Can we order 50,000 missiles to be delivered right away and charged to the US taxpayer?


Sure. How do you want to take delivery?

Oh, just dump 'em out anywhere. Large mall, university, anyplace where people can get their hands on 'em.

Will do. Expedited delivery?


Yeah, why not? I ain't the one payin', am I? (Giggles)

Thank you for calling Global Fear, Inc. Have a nice day.

[bongbong]

27. Yep

Exactamente!

[woo me with science]

32. Ah, the prescience. nt

[boppers]

33. Remember when we averaged a plane hijacking a month?

For some reason, many people don't. Maybe it's an age thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings

[bongbong]

37. Not important

Those hijackings were largely the work of lone wolves with specific, usually political, grievances. Fly the person or persons somewhere or give them some money, and then get the airplane & passengers back.

Nowadays the security is much higher, except for when the government or corporations order the government to put on a show to get more anti-American laws passed. If at a point in time the corporate-run government needs to remove more of the Constitution, security will mysteriously get lax at that point in time.

[FarCenter]

13. The SA-24 is effective at up to 3.5 km altitude (11,500 feet)

9K338 9M342 Igla-S / SA-24 Grinch
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/9k338.htm

In the 1990s the KBM continued improving the Igla MANPADS. As a result, a new Igla-S system entered service with the Russian Army in 2004. The most recent system is substantially more efficient than the Igla and the US Stinger MANPADS.

Libya Has Advanced Russian SAMs
https://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/03/28/AW_03_28_2011_p25-301117.xml&headline=Libya%20Has%20Advanced%20Russian%20SAMs&next=0

But probably only a small percent of the 20,000 are SA-24s.

[24601]

14. There's absolutely no way Obama could ever have foreseen that

these kinds of weapons could fall into the wrong hands.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. Nope. Doing an on-the-cheap bit of imperialism shouldn't cause any unintended consequences.

Destabilizing a regime gets messy, and the blowback is the fault of the meddlers.

[ManiacJoe]

59. What does Obama have to do with Russian missiles?

[joshcryer]

20. C.J. Chivers was reporting on this months ago. Some of them at least were used by rebels against...

...tanks. C. J. Chivers was completely bewildered by that behavior (as a shot at a tank is basically blind shooting, the things need to have a 'blank' sky to target the heat signature, shooting anywhere near ground basically washes out the instrumentation).

[happyslug]

23. Of limited usefulness, even against air ports

The Ideal situation for the use of one of these man protable missiles is an airport where they can watch the planes land and take off from some place where it is easy to hide. The Air terminal itself is a bad location for this for the simple reason every one can see you pull out the missile. Freeways are hard for the same reason, to many people on the Freeways for someone to stop, park his car, fire the missile and then leave.

The Ideal situation is someplace where there is a road network where people normally stop their cars. This can even be a road with just red lights as opposed to on the side of the road parking. In such a situation someone can get out of the car, leave someone else drive it away, to into an area with some sort of Cover (Preferably tree) and wait for a plane to come into range. Fire the Missile, abandon the residue, walk back to the road and walk along the road till the car the terrorist first exited fro, comes back and pick him up.

Most Airports do NOT have areas like that. Greater Pitt Airport for example is surrounded on all but one side by limited access highways, with huge open fields. Easy to spot someone getting out of a car and setting up a position to fire a missile. On the only side without a limited Access highway (Where the old terminal used to be), you have the Air National Guard base, and various businesses, all tied in with the air industry, where it would be easy to spot someone who does NOT belong, driving his car into the business and exiting a car and setting up to fire a missile.

Now, the Chief reason for this Greater Pitt is one of the largest Airports (in terms of land) in the Country. It was the largest Airport in the USA in terms of Area for Decades. It is still Number 4 in area behind only Denver International Airport (1995), Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (1974) and Orlando International Airport (1961, through it had been an Air Force Airport since WWII). Greater Pitt had the longest Runways for a Commercial Airport till the Construction of Dallas-Fort Worth and the expansion of various other Runways in the 1970s and 1980s.

For all of the above advantages, (it is well liked by Pilots) it is only the 57th busiest airport in the US, this with the Pittsburgh Metro area being the 22nd largest Metro Area in the US.

List if US Metro Areas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas

Given Greater Pitts isolation do to its size (and the same can be said of the three largest airport in area), such missiles are almost useless. Such missiles were to provide protection of ground units by forcing aircraft to fly high (above 600 feet) and this come the cover of long range missiles (Which do to their size and use of Radar, have limited effectiveness against aircraft that fly near to the ground). The classic case was the Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal in the Yom Kipper War. The Egyptian's army use of such missiles (Primitive compared today's version but effective enough), along with 12,7. 14.5 and 23mm AA Guns, forced the Israeli Air Force to fly high, and thus became targets of Egypt's long range AA missiles. This worked out till the ground forces left the area of coverage of their large AA Missiles, which opened them up to Air Attacks from on high attitude, i.e. above the range of these Missiles.

Together with Large AA missiles, AA guns and other AA weapons (Including the movement to go with sound based AA directional weapons), these missiles can provide effective defense for Ground forces, but by themselves, there are to limited in range to be effective.

[Robert_C]

28. More of a threat to Heathrow

London is much closer to the Middle East; direct flights to Israel go from there; Heathrow is surrounded by city ...
There or in some other European city is where I would expect them to be used.

[happyslug]

41. You must understand what is the most feared weapons when it comes to Airport Runways

And those are the 81mm and 120mm Mortars. The 120 MM Mortar has a range of 7000 meters (Over two Miles) and has a large enough projectile to cause a lot of FOD to exist around the runway. The 81mm projectile is lighter, and has shorter range, but it is easier to get out of the Pickup, fires Three to Four Rounds, load back into the Pickup and vacate the area. Radar could detect such rounds in the 1960s, so at lease since the 1970s that has been the official policy of the Artillery and the Mortars, fire three rounds and leave the firing area.

FOD (Foreign Objects and Debris) is the most fear item on runways, especially for Jets. In 2000 the Concorde had its only accident where people died, the Concorde's engines failed on takeoff to to a piece of FOD (in that case a Titanium mental strip, that came off the place that took off right before the Concorde) was pulled into the engine, and then wreaked the engine.

In this regard, an mortar firing three rounds onto the Runway, would shut down the Airport for at least 1/2 a day while someone looks over the runway and see how much damages was done AND the maintenance crew goes out and pick up every bit of FOD left do to the shelling. In most airports this would cause more problem then shooting down an airliner.

Jet engines are especially vulnerable to FOD, do to the nature of how air entered the engine and what the engine does to the air when it passes through the engine. Smaller jets (Mostly Jet Fighters) have been taken down by FOD, including birds flying across the flight path of the Runway when a jet takes off.

The lost of a Concorde to FOD, the FOD was a piece of metal from the Jet that proceeded taking off from the same runway the Concorde was taking off from (Air France Flight 4590):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590

Do to the fear of FOD, you have tight security around most runways, going out 2-3 miles from the runways. Now, these security zones may look open, and even be open, but there also tend to have very little "Cover" for people to hide and wait. Part of the Security of most airports is making sure there is no place someone can stop for five or so minutes without being seen by someone. In such situations, most potential terrorists move on when they are seen, and it is often people will call security when they see such people doing things that is NOT normally done in the area. The reason for this is security, to make such people with Mortars can NOT get within the Security zone and fire those Mortars.

Given the range of AA Missiles, these are only usable in an even narrow range from an Airport then are Mortars. The same security that comes into play with Mortars come into play with such missiles. In fact, given the greater range of Mortars, Mortars are a bigger threat. Heathrow was subject to Home made mortar attacks by the IRA about 1994, thus some sort of Security system exists, enough to not only prevent the use of AA missiles as while as Mortars. These home made devices caused very little problems, jets kept taking off for at least one hour after the attacks thus by sheer luck (And the fact the Mortars were home made and caused minimal FOD) no plane went down, it did cause most airports to increase the security around their runways.

The 1994 Attack on Healthrow Airport:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ira-bombs-on-runway-as-jets-land-mortar-attack-at-heathrow--new-campaign-fear--terrorism-act-renewed-in-commons-1428076.html

[Hassin Bin Sober]

57. Chicago's ORD is surrounded by thousands of acres of forest preserve.

With miles of secluded lightly traveled drives in those preserves.

[unkachuck]

26. "Matching up a terrorist with a shoulder-fired missile, that's our worst nightmare,"

....that could be brought about by any number of circumstances and means....

....it's unfortunate, but transitioning from dictatorship, to hopefully democracy, can be a sloppy process....but that's not to say people shouldn't try....peoples' aspirations to shake off the yoke of tyranny shouldn't be denied for the sake of Western convenience....

....were these missiles manufactured by Libyans?....is the West complicit?

[marasinghe]

30. re. "What could possibly go wrong?" - no worries.

if ever there's a chance of a new Libyan regime going radically anti-world order - NATO, or the US, can send in their heroic armies to de-fang the radicals. after all, they could be using those 20,000 SAMs to down airplanes around the World. That worked pretty well in Iraq; and, as a side-benefit - all that oil which belongs to whoever can make the most use of it, won't be getting under the control of some anarchic Arabs, either. it's win-win, whichever way the coin lands.

[woo me with science]

36. Follow the money.

"....Boxer sent a letter today to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano urging the two to establish a joint program "to protect commercial aircraft from the threat of shoulder-fired missiles."

According to Boxer, it would cost about a million dollars a plane for a system that has been installed and successfully tested over the last few years, directing a laser beam into the incoming missile...."

[KamaAina]

43. Mission accomplished!

:sarcasm:

[ButterflyBlood]

49. These things have been floating around on the black market forever

Think of how many are left over in Afghanistan after the Soviets after all. They are actually of quite limited use. They aren't like grenades or C4, they're complicated parts that fall apart easy and require some expertise to use, not just a point and fire type of thing. The Afghans made good use of them against the Soviets because of CIA training, but not every two bit terrorist group out there is going to get that sort of thing. Hell Iran has been giving these to Hezbollah for decades along with some training, and they've still not exactly been all that effective against the Israeli air force in the slightest.

[BadGimp]

55. somebody call JACK RYAN quick!

if hes not available then get Ben Affleck and that other guy from Sum Of All Fears, they know how to track that stuff down..