So...We're Expecting Al-Qaeda to Build Cruise Missiles?

[Violet]

An airborne set, however, would have a much larger scanning area while still relying on much more reliable, and accurate, line-of-site radar methodology. According to

The Army states that the blimps do not carry any cameras or sigint collectors. Could they be lying? Of course. But the military rationale seems reasonable, even if the threat -- and expenditure responding to it -- is overdone.

They should have those things... they hopefully do... but on the other hand: it could establish a concerning precedent for watching one's own people...

Especially since the actual threat of cruise missiles is so low.

---

Sept 26th, 1983-just past midnight. A malfunction in the soviet early warning satellite system causes the alarms under the watch of one Stanislov Petrov (on call that day - not scheduled to be there) to fire off. A missile has been launched from the US, and is headed towards the Soviet Union. Petrov decides that it must be an error, the US wouldn't launch a single missile. Then it showed a second missile. A third, a fourth, and a fifth. He waited, then decided not to issue the alarm that could have terminated in a retaliatory strike from the soviets.

Balls of steel.

Utter respect.

---

And since military brass is all about orders and rather stupid, he got punished for not retaliating and following reason instead.

That's Soviet Russia for you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As I noted earlier, it is plausible the Pentagon would misplace some cruise missiles and al-Qaeda could snag them.

You can't just point the thing off the back of a pickup truck and light a fuse.

[The Valkyrie]

As I noted earlier, it is plausible the Pentagon would misplace some cruise missiles and al-Qaeda could snag them.

You can't just point the thing off the back of a pickup truck and light a fuse.

You can't?

Dammit!

Back to plan c!

[Thumpalumpacus]

They should have those things... they hopefully do... but on the other hand: it could establish a concerning precedent for watching one's own people...

Especially since the actual threat of cruise missiles is so low.

Well, we do -- but they're mounted on airplanes that are very expensive to operate. I'm guessing that the purpose of mounting this system on a pair of static-line balloons is to achieve big operational savings.

Reading up on the thing, the trial run, with the two aerostats, is projected to provide look-down radar coverage from New England to the Carolinas.

As for watching one's own people, blimps seem pretty both relatively expensive, and inefficient. Low-cost remote webcams specifically placed to spy on a target would be much more suitable than blimp-mounted sensors, which could be defeated by such simple expedients as switching cars or transacting your illicit business in a parking garage.