Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Jose posted:

To put it in perspective, suppose all the highways into and out of
DC
were blockaded, [...]

SNIP

Great analogy. I don't understand why people just don't get the
significantly greater threat that ground-based vehicles pose to our
"security". It's idiotic to be concerned about long-shots such as GA
when
there is absolutely nothing done to protect against far greater and
more
practical means of doing damage.

I'm calling BS on this. Do you *know* nothing else is being done?

You can't drive a good-sized truck right up next to the Capitol or WH.
A truck bomb is very effective but you still need to get close to the
target to do structural damage.

So you say, fine, we just use a bigger bomb. A tractor trailer can
carry 40 tons so let's load up. Well, that's a lot of explosive to get
together. Try buying large quantities of nitrate fertilizer lately? The
gov't sure as hell is monitoring the trade in explosive precursors
since the OK City bombing. Likewise, I strongly suspect there is
monitoring of truck rentals going on, but I can't say that for sure.

Where I would agree with the ADIZ critics is on productivity/resource
grounds. It is a thousand times more likely that terrorists would get
caught when buying or messing around with the airplane than when they
bust the ADIZ. It's not clear to me that maintaining the ADIZ is
actively preventing them from doing these other things, so it's not an
either-or decision.

-cwk.