Replies

> Just as an aside, the cost of one AIM 9 would buy several of those Cessna’s. Therefore, it shooting it down could have potentially done as much damage as not, and wasted thousands of taxpayer dollars in the process, why bother?

They don’t have machine guns anymore, ay?

I don’t really mind whether they shot the Cessna down or not: I am somewhat suspicious of the pilot’s motives and not quite convinced it was as harmless as we are being told.

> If you think throwing something out of the window would have dispersed some toxin or bio-agent, how much more would have an explosion from the aircraft fuel tank hit by a missile warhead or 20 mm rounds have dispersed it?

In the case of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, it is destroyed by fire. That’s why Britain had to burn the cattle carcasses: it was the best and safest way to dispose of them. So exploding the plane would have been a fairly sensible thing to do if they were sure he was carrying FMD. If it were nuclear waste or something else, perhaps not.

They don’t have machine guns anymore, ay?

No. What they have are 20mm Gatling cannons capable of firing 6000 round per minute. Each round can cost more than $5.00 each. Its not as expensive as a missile, but it still isn’t cheap.

I don’t really mind whether they shot the Cessna down or not: I am somewhat suspicious of the pilot’s motives and not quite convinced it was as harmless as we are being told.

Perhaps, you are correct. It still doesn’t change the calculations making a shoot-down more costly in most ways than not.

In the case of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, it is destroyed by fire. That’s why Britain had to burn the cattle carcasses: it was the best and safest way to dispose of them. So exploding the plane would have been a fairly sensible thing to do if they were sure he was carrying FMD. If it were nuclear waste or something else, perhaps not.

You have answered the question in your last sentence.