- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
Comments (4)
Print
Save/ShareShields up! In tests last year, three Boeing commercial jets were outfitted with lasers, which could be fired to disable missiles shot by terrorists. The three Boeing planes were owned by American Airlines, but were only tested on flights without passengers to make sure no one was endangered.
The airborne lasers don't "shoot down" missiles. Instead, they jam the electronics of the missiles, causing them to veer off course and miss the plane. This laser-jamming technology costs up to $1 million a piece—and may not work perfectly.
But last week we found out about new lasers from Boeing that do, in fact, destroy missiles by burning holes through them. Boeing released a video of a test of how one of its lasers—mounted on a 747 soaring high in the air—hit a target on the hood of a car parked in a desert.
Similar technology could thwart terrorists armed with shoulder-fired projectiles.
What do you think? Should America arm its passenger jets with any kind of anti-missle system?
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
Interesting video, but not much of a test. The car is obviously parked. The last time I checked, a missile bearing down on a plane was considered a MOVING target.
When it comes to anti-missile lasers, I'll always be skeptical. But maybe that comes from watching "Spies Like Us" too many times.
Posted By Anthony F on October 5, 2009, 2:00 PM
Well, obviously, the Obama administration will want to take away our lasers. Not to mention our 747s. Certainly this is one for Glenn Beck and the N.L.A.
Posted By Christopher Gray on October 5, 2009, 3:18 PM
Let me see if I get this straight. The laser causes the missile to veer off course. So is is airline responsible for anything the missile does hit??? I can't believe that airlines will adopt this unless they can destroy the missile in mid-air. If not, they might be liable for any damages caused on the ground.
Posted By Tom B. on October 5, 2009, 7:47 PM
Yay Tom!
Instead of deflecting the missile headed toward the aircraft with 400 people on board, who will all certainly die if it hits, we should do nothing, just in case the missile hits something when it is deflected.
Never mind that the thing it hits will almost certainly be the ground, but let's say it does hit a house (unlikely), and kills 3 people. You've just accidentally killed 3 people to save 400.
Think, Tom, think! It's not that hard.
Posted By Captain Reality on November 5, 2009, 4:02 AM