What do you mean, I can't go there?

[robkelk]

I was doing some flying a couple of weekends ago (as a passenger, not a pilot), and I took some photos during the trip, http://web.ncf.ca/fm536/moreflightphotos/index.html]just as I usually do.

We didn't undergo any background checks before the flights. We didn't have to ask for special permission to make the flights. We didn't have to file flight plans far in advance; in fact, my pilot usually files flight plans by phone less than a quarter-hour before takeoff.

And nobody blinked an eye because of these flights. But if we'd tried this in Washington, or Delhi, or London, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fly_zone]we'd be in big trouble.

What's the rationale for putting "no-fly zones" around public buildings? Especially in what are supposed to be free countries? (It isn't as if saying "no, you can't fly there" is going to stop a terrorist.) I can understand putting flight restrictions around spaceports or military live-fire ranges for the safety of the pilots, but why limit access to government buildings or sports venues that anyone can approach on the ground?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[CattyNebulart]

They are worried about people flying the plane into the building, and so in some of these places they have anti-air missiles to shoot down planes that violate the no-fly zone. Yes they are idiots, but most people don't have planes and so don't care.

I agree the no-fly zone around washington is way too big and it should be pared down to a more reasonable volume, but in general I don't have problems with reasonable no-fly zones, such as say only allow planes with a flight-plan near busy airports, or require planes to keep some distance from various locations, by say setting a minimum height that is higher than normal, and not letting planes fly in warzones etc.

That said I don't have a problem with reasonable no-fly zones, what I find far more troubeling is that satelite photos of historical landmarks often get banned. Is google earth allowed to show the capitol and white-house again or are they still banned from showing that?

And what about the ban on Area 51 images? Surly the russians and chinese have their own satelites, and so would any other credible threat, so why are they banned? Especially since Area 51 is so secure that aliens are working there, illegal ones that is.

So is there ever a reason to restrict satelite imagery? (assuming the pixels are at least of square meter size or something. I can see the argument behind not showing milimeter resolution images of peoples backyards.)
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[Black Aeronaut]

Catty... Have you been watching the news, man? Look at what happened in Austin, TX not more than a week ago!
Okay, let's look at the facts here. Say a terrorist somehow gains control of a Boeing 747-400 passenger airliner. They may be big, but they are not slow. While they usually ride pretty smooth, their top rated ground speed is a knuckle-whitening 614 mph. That's 533 knots, 988 km/h, or Mach 0.92. Need a better idea of how fast that is? Okay. Try 10.23 miles per minute. That's right, roughly ten-and-one-quarter miles-per-minute, or nearly sixteen-and-one-half kilometers-per-minute.
Now, I don't know what the boundries for the No-Fly zones are. However, given the data above, I'd be pretty damn paranoid. For one thing, I would want time to ascertain whether or not an airliner has had a terrible case of pilot error or equipment failure... or if some nutjob actually has taken control of the plane and intends to do an end-run on the White House. You don't want to be sending your SAMs to light up a target that's genuinely innocent - that's bad press no matter how you spin it!
Also you'd like a moment to get the PotUS, the VP, the JCoS, and whatever other VIPs that happen to kicking it at the White House out in a timely manner.
In short, do I think that the No Fly Zones are too big? HAH! They probably aren't big enough! Got a problem with it? Tell Amtrak, BARTA, and the other local rail operators to start laying more track and running more trains. This is not an issue that is going to go away anymore.
Besides, after kicking it Japanese style, I can tell you that a rail-focused tansit system ain't too shabby if it's done right - the only things they ever really slow down for here are earthquakes and commuter suicides (the ever popular Japanese custom of taking a flying leap infront of the train as it pulls through the station).

[CattyNebulart]

And yet trucks where not banned after the Oklahoma City bombing. If you shoot down a plane within 20 miles of Washinton it's probably going to crash on somebody's house, and not all federal buildings have a no-fly zone around them. Also as you said you are not going to have much time regardless, but you would have no warning of a truck bomb.

I suppose private ownership of planes could be banned but other than that it's hard to prevent something like that from happening.

I agree a rail system would be good, it just needs to be built first, but it's also somewhat of topic, rob made the valid point about restricting freedom this way. There used to be people flying over washinton to take pictures, that was even pretty much the reason for existing of one of the local airports. I suppose I wouldn't have a problem with the hughe no-fly zone if they also banned say private cars in washington (which would do absolutly lovely things to the local trafic patterns), but for some reason they won't do that. Geee I wonder why?
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

[robkelk]

Catty appears to have understood my point. It's possible to put a nuke on a cargo ship, but we still let cargo ships dock in Manhattan and Montréal. It's possible to strap some blocks of C4 and a detonator to your chest and blow yourself to bits at the first security checkpoint you reach (as has been illustrated far too many times in the Middle East), but we still let people who wear trenchcoats walk up to the various Parliament and Congress buildings in the world. And those possibilities (and driving a truck up to the building, as happened in Oklahoma City) are far less obvious than an aircraft is.

So why are flyers being discriminated against, especially in what are supposedly "free" countries?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[ECSNorway]

Because fewer people will complain about it, and it gives the impression that they're doing something that will actually stop it from happening again.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Bob Schroeck]

...and because by the nature of the beast, government reaction to terrorist acts is almost always to impede the last thing that worked, rather than anticipate new things that might be tried. It's easier (and better press, and easier to explain) to do something sweeping and overreactive and say, "Now, never again!" than work on prevention for things that might not happen. It's the Y2K problem again -- if your work is successful, you can never prove it was needed. And if something happens you didn't anticipate, you will be blamed out of proportion to your role in failing to prevent it.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Black Aeronaut]

Catty: Ohhh, vehicle traffic is suppressed alright. You can't get within a thousand hundred yards of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. with so much as a moped. And that was, IIRC, post Oklahoma City.

Rob: You honestly think that they don't worry about that sort of thing? How much you want to bet that they don't watch shipping traffic like a hawk up and down the Potomac. And really, that's the only one they're gonna watch that closely because it is the closest body of water that links to the sea to the President. Besides, that's a threat that cannot be truly eliminated not matter how many guys with Geiger counters you use to sweep such a ship. We'll just have to hope and pray that some asshole in Pakistan doesn't slip Al Queada one of their nukes. (Otherwise, the most that they'll be able to come up will probably be a dirty bomb.)

Okay, let's talk about cold calculations here, people.

What is going to have a greater impact on a country such as ours?

A) Drop a burning airliner into the middle of a urban/suburban neighborhood and killing a hundred odd civilians (not including people on the plane).

B) Drop an airliner onto the White House and kill the President as well as God knows how many other government officials (not including people on the plane).

I know it's pretty callous of me, but you have to think about our priorities here. There's a reason why only the President rides around in a limousine that can take a hit from an anti-tank mine and suffer no casualties among the passengers. Trust me, if not for those No-Fly Zones, Al Queada would probably have as many of their agents as possible trying to fly everything they can get their mitts on into the White House. There's no bigger target than that.

Yes, it would be a terrible tragedy if some aircraft had to be shot down and it landed in a densely populated area. The loss of life would be traumatic, but it pales in comparison to the President, the VP, and possibly even the JCoS getting offed in the going. That kind of loss would paralyze our government for weeks, bare minimum. And don't you dare say anything along the lines of "The President is no better than any of us." That is horribly unpatriotic, and even if you're not a citizen of the US it is just plain WRONG.

Finally, do you know why we have the highest degrees of security than any other country? Anyone?

...

It's because they're mainly gunning for us. They could have made the 9/11 attacks a worldwide event, targeting every single non-Islamic democracy they wanted to take out, but instead they only focused on the US. Hitting a bunch of other places like London, Tokyo, Moscow, Paris, and Sydney would have had a much larger and more far reaching affects than just hitting NY and DC... but it came straight from the horse's mouth that this was a 'Special Treat' just for us Americans. Above all others, they hate and despise us the most because we have had the biggest impact on the world.

They're mainly gunning for us, and anyone else they can nail is just gravy.

[M Fnord]

Finally, do you know why we have the highest degrees of security than any other country? Anyone?

Because we read Tom Clancy novels and believe they're real?

Because people with a financial interest in terror ("if it bleeds, it leads!") keep pumping the discourse full of toxic sludge?

Because we're a nation of scared children?
Mr. Fnord interdimensional man of mystery

FenWiki - Your One-Stop Shop for Fenspace Information

"I. Drink. Your. NERDRAGE!"

[robkelk]

To be fair, the Prohibited Area around Washington was put in place before 9/11. However, it appears from my research that it was put in place a couple of decades after somebody first tried to drop an aircraft on the White House, in order to kill President Nixon.

(It isn't easy to find the information to corroborate this - one needs to trawl through the Federal Register, and I may have missed something relevant.)

The "security" argument for this PA doesn't appear to match the historical record...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012