Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houca.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houca!trc From: trc@houca.UUCP Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: addendum to arming airliners Message-ID: <394@houca.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Sep-83 08:39:28 EDT Article-I.D.: houca.394 Posted: Fri Sep 16 08:39:28 1983 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Sep-83 06:39:17 EDT Organization: American Bell, Holmdel NJ Lines: 33 Response to stan the lep hack and others: First, for those of you that did not notice, my note suggested putting a weapon in airliners that could *only* be activated after the plane were shot down. Actually, I considered putting a :-) on it, though not for the reason "stan" mentions - it is simply not a safe thing to do, when compared with the current level of risk of being shot down. It makes much more sense to simply stay out of Soviet air space. Also, it really would not have been much of a deterrent in the case of the Soviets - the pilot would have had to obey orders even if he knew of the airline's weapon. One real problem of "dying gasp" weapons is making sure that they dont go off prematurely, causing a provocation or disaster. However, I dont think that a workable "dying gasp" weapon would be irrational - its purpose is to deter attack, without provoking one. It is not irrational to kill an irrational person that has just mortally wounded you - it falls in the category of punitive actions. Stan seems to be making the assumption that it is *always* irrational to kill another person. Or perhaps he might make a distinction between killing an attacker before they mortally wound and after, saying that the former is rational self-defense, and the latter is irrational. Thus we arrive at the surprising idea that it is worse (from the defender's point of view) for the attacker to *intend* to kill one than it is for him to intend and then actually *succeed* in doing so. \\\\ |0|0| ( \_/ ) OK? ===== Tom Craver houca!trc