Quote:
Arrant nonsense!
Well there's definitely some polarised opinions on here aren't there?
I think examples of large aircraft accidents in urban areas show that whilst there can be significant casualties on the ground, there are - more often than not - relatively few casualties on the ground compared to the lives lost on board. Contrast that to a scenario where aircraft are deliberately flown into large buildings.
So I'd respectively suggest that allowing an aircraft to crash into a packed stadium or a tower block would probably cause massively more casualties than an engagement.
That's not to say I would regard stopping such a scenario as a 'success' - it would obviously be a tragedy - but in the extremely unlikely event it was to happen I would view it as the least worst option. Utilitarian perhaps, but not IMHO 'preposterous'.
I agree. For example, El Al at Amsterdam hit a block of flats and the death count on the ground was 47..... although initial estimates were far higher.
The way I see it, an engagement at least allows the possibility of no more fatalities; the wreckage could come down in an open area. There are parklands and bodies of water, even in London.
Granted, 0 casualties on the ground is probably not going to happen, but there is at least a chance. There is a greater chance that the casualties will be relatively modest. Whereas if some nutter plants a jet into a packed stadium the death toll will probably be thousands.
Its a no brainer.
If a member of your family was killed because a (possibly) crashing plane was diverted elsewhere, would you be delighted and thank whoever was responsible?
Well, I'd blame who was responsible.... the terrorist organisation, not the people placed in the unenviable position of choosing the lesser of two evils.
The idea that a small number of people might need to be put at risk to protect a much larger number of people ought to be something that any current or ex-serviceman ought to understand imho.
pb