20,000 SAMS MISSING

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by rphud

Folks guarding the borders have done a bang up job of keeping things like that out for a long time know. You can be sure there are more out there and have been out there other than the ones from Libya. The shoulder fired ones generally cannot bring down commercial aircraft. Secret Service deployed a bunch around DC after 9-11, but they new they were pretty much pea shooters if another jet liner was inbound on the capital or white house. They would need to shoot out all the engines to bring one down. The preceding is not nearly alarmist enough for the general media these days though.

Watch out for your "neighbor" loading a boatload of propane tanks or fertilizer into the back of his SUV though.

Disagree. The shoulder fired SAMs can bring down a commercial airliner. Maybe not all of the time but 60-80% of the time they are likely succesful. The probability of kill likely increases the newer the design missile.

Originally Posted by spence

Always the positive thinker aren't ya? Oy vey...

I think it's a pretty safe bet that al Qaeda already has access to SAMs, or could easily get their hands on as many as they want.

An influx of a large number of weapons could encourage their use, sure, but there are a lot of variables here.

As a said, it's a big concern.

-spence

A lot of guvmints have been working very hard for a very long time to keep man portable SAMs (and service life extending components like batteries) off the black markets in general and out of AQ hands in particular. They have been fairly successful.

This stirs up a bit oh bleep factor.

As for as my Bush reference, that was my Oi Vaay for your Iraq reference

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

A lot of guvmints have been working very hard for a very long time to keep man portable SAMs (and service life extending components like batteries) off the black markets in general and out of AQ hands in particular. They have been fairly successful.

This stirs up a bit oh bleep factor.

As for as my Bush reference, that was my Oi Vaay for your Iraq reference

Can't believe there's not still a market for them out there.

My Iraq reference wasn't meant to be negative.

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Can't believe there's not still a market for them out there.

My Iraq reference wasn't meant to be negative.

-spence

There is a tremendous market out there. MANPADS are a great equalizer in many environments.

Spence, sometimes it is real hard to tell.

(And no, that is based on your bias & track record, not my bias and track record )

(x2 just doesn't feel right using smileys today)

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

There is a tremendous market out there. MANPADS are a great equalizer in many environments.

Spence, sometimes it is real hard to tell.

(And no, that is based on your bias & track record, not my bias and track record )

(x2 just doesn't feel right using smileys today)

The point was that in Iraq we saw a similar dumping of weapons into an uncontrolled situation. A lot of this ordinance was turned right around and used against US troops...but I don't believe we've seen any increase in international terrorism that's been enabled by an influx of weapons.

I don't think the Libyan rebels are stupid and would likely retain as much weaponry as possible to maintain their position or quite likely be employed in sectarian squabbles.

Perhaps the greatest risk is a SAM getting into the hands of someone not affiliated with al Qaeda and just taking a random pot shot.

-spence

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

The point was that in Iraq we saw a similar dumping of weapons into an uncontrolled situation. A lot of this ordinance was turned right around and used against US troops...but I don't believe we've seen any increase in international terrorism that's been enabled by an influx of weapons.

Most of the ordinance used against US forces was not portable sams. SAMs make a horrible IED. The SAMs were used against military and commercial aircraft.

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think the Libyan rebels are stupid and would likely retain as much weaponry as possible to maintain their position or quite likely be employed in sectarian squabbles.

Perhaps the greatest risk is a SAM getting into the hands of someone not affiliated with al Qaeda and just taking a random pot shot.

-spence

I think both of those statements are at minimum naive

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I think both of those statements are at minimum naive

And at most pretty prescient.

I don't think al Qaeda would place much hope in the chance a SAM might take out an aircraft. Their track record is in large dramatic events and will show patience to plan and execute them.

A random pot shot by a small group not on the radar would be very difficult to stop in advance.

Like I said, it's a big concern, but I'm not sure if even the scenario became true would be a game changer. The Semtex might be even more of a concern.

Naive and biased in the same thread. I love it when you get all snippy

-spence

[JohnR]

Uhh, prescient was not what I was thinking.

AQ has been underwhelming in large scale attacks, certainly in the west for the past few years, in that many of the major plots have failed. Though they have still tried (and inspired) smaller scale attacks this is where they are more successful outside of US/Eur.

No, portable SAMs, especially late model Russian models, would be a nasty and effective use in civilian areas. The portable SAM track record over the past 30 something years is the loss of over 30 aircraft and 800 dead. With about 60% effective rate.

But maybe we can click our heels three times and change the narrative. Then it won't happen.

Semtex? Your kidding, right?