Well I came across an article this news while at work.

http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/criminal_justice/147837/kelly--nypd-has-anti-aircraft-weapons/?r=2450808357

 

Well the first thing I think to myself is "I bet its those dangerous .50 cal rifles that can shoot down planes because the anti's say you can" I figured they probably have an M2 or two set up, if they actually have anything at all to act as anti air.

 

Then I found this article

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/09/27/2011-09-27_plane_speaking_unlikely_big_jets_on_nypd_hit_list.html

and this one

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44673995

 

The "anti air" defense is a guy in a helicopter hanging out the side with a Barrett M82 sniper rifle. I can't believe it; they actually believe the anti's that you can shoot down an aircraft with a .50 cal rifle. and at least msnbc's article sounds like the believe it too.

 

here is an article from wired.com that explains all luck it would take to do that

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/can-the-nypd-shoot-down-a-plane-kinda-sorta-not-exactly/

I liked City Councilman Peter Vallone's comment the best; "One of the lessons we learned on 9/11 is we can't rely on the federal government. The FBI failed us. The CIA failed us."

 

He's right.

I hadn't looked into this honestly. I just assumed that they had one or two Stinger Missles to take care of this isht. Would be cheaper and easier and kinda Ronco (set it and forget it).

I honestly don't see how they could effectively use it. I mean shooting a flying plane doesn't just kill everyone on the plane, it also kills people on the ground where the plane crashes. Yea in a situation like 9/11, shooting down the plane MAY have saved some lives, but then whoever pushed the button/fired the gun just took those lives, rather than the terrorists. Do they not realize this?

I honestly don't see how they could effectively use it. I mean shooting a flying plane doesn't just kill everyone on the plane; it also kills people on the ground where the plane crashes. Yea in a situation like 9/11, shooting down the plane MAY have saved some lives, but then whoever pushed the button/fired the gun just took those lives, rather than the terrorists. Do they not realize this?

well, from more reading the original intent of this plan was to counter the threat of terrorists using a crop duster to spread a chemical or biological agent, so such a plane would not have passengers to worry about, as well as damage from the actual crash would not be too severe (though the area it crashed into would be highly contaminated, but at least it would be concentrated to one area instead of dispersed throughout the whole city) They have at least admitted that this plan would not have worked against large aircraft. Now in the situation that the plan was intended for it has a little better chance of success, but only 1*10^-42 of a percent in my opinion. Even in the movies this would not be a plan, this would be the desperate hair ball scheme that the heroes would come up with on the fly after all else has failed.

I honestly don't see how they could effectively use it. I mean shooting a flying plane doesn't just kill everyone on the plane, it also kills people on the ground where the plane crashes. Yea in a situation like 9/11, shooting down the plane MAY have saved some lives, but then whoever pushed the button/fired the gun just took those lives, rather than the terrorists. Do they not realize this?

 

We scramble for an eminent threat the decision to take out what would result in the least amount of lives lost is what would happen, and in these situations of a scramble it will be a split second or 2 decision and regardless of the outcome it will not be good in the public eye. Way too many what ifs and Monday morning quarterbacking will happen. I just hope I am not there when something happens and I said when and not if on purpose.

 

Harry

well, from more reading the original intent of this plan was to counter the threat of terrorists using a crop duster to spread a chemical or biological agent, so such a plane would not have passengers to worry about, as well as damage from the actual crash would not be too severe (though the area it crashed into would be highly contaminated, but at least it would be concentrated to one area instead of dispersed throughout the whole city) They have at least admitted that this plan would not have worked against large aircraft. Now in the situation that the plan was intended for it has a little better chance of success, but only 1*10^-42 of a percent in my opinion. Even in the movies this would not be a plan, this would be the desperate hair ball scheme that the heroes would come up with on the fly after all else has failed.

 

As for hairball schemes, even against a small aircraft a .50 will do next to nothing unless you manage to hit the engine (which is TINY in a small aircraft).

 

You'd be better off trying to fly the helicopter into any of the planes--large or small.

 

It's been said, and I'll repeat it....

We scramble for an eminent threat the decision to take out what would result in the least amount of lives lost is what would happen, and in these situations of a scramble it will be a split second or 2 decision and regardless of the outcome it will not be good in the public eye. Way too many what ifs and Monday morning quarterbacking will happen. I just hope I am not there when something happens and I said when and not if on purpose.

 

Harry

And one issue arises..... I don't trust them to make a decision like that in a matter of seconds. The other issue is that you're NOT going to make anybody happy with shooting down ANY kind of plane in a city like NY. Don't shoot the plane down, the masses will complain that they didn't act when they had the tools to. They DO shoot the plane down, the masses will complain that it caused too much damage shooting it down. There's no winning in that situation, and I honestly think it's best to just NOT have the tool.

I agree, and like I said I hope I am not on when something like this happens, I know I have no issues with problems when they happen and thinking thing through and not panicking is key and being methodical in your processes and decision making, but with things like this it's just a different ballgame with no right answer.

 

Believe me, I don't want to ever see another attack like 911 but we are in a world that something like that can happen any time, any place.

 

Harry

While I agree with the fact that any political person is probably doomed no matter what decision they were to make, if for example if a police helicopter happened to be in the immediate area and one of the police officers decided to try to shoot down the plane on his own initiative and managed to, the officer would be considered a hero. Of course that would go out the window if they were ordered to be prepared for that situation i.e. carry special weapons or told to do that in case of a future incident.