New Prohibited Area

John Galban wrote:

And how exactly does having a small circle of airspace that only goes
to 2,500 MSL protect these nuclear submarines and warheads?

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)


By giving the on-site defense forces an area where they are authorized
to use deadly force, with or without the use of a warning shot.

Who is to say there isnt going to be CIWS on a pedestal out there that
is LIVE.. I would hate to be on the recieving end of a volley from one
of them.

Dave

"turbo" wrote in message news:izHle.10122$

I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a
submarine
base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL.


WHAT?! The government doesn't want people buzzing our nuclear submarine
fleet or the missile-loading facilities?

Outrageous.

I'm curious what the GA population thinks of the friggin' HUGE closure of
the Nevada Test Site. I mean, how could they do such a thing to taxpayers,
not letting us fly over Area 51 and stuff? Sheesh.

;

-c

I am sure glad that those Cessna 150s won't be harming those hardened sub
pens that were designed to survive an indirect hit from a ruski nuclear
warhead. If a terrorist crashes in to the pen, I am sure the FAA will be
right there to quickly take away his pilots license, and then He won't be
able to crash into sub pens ever again, without first flying without a
license.

This restriction is the price we pay for added security, or at least the
appearance of added security. It is just like the added sense of security we
get when we restrict small airplanes from flying around nuclear plants. I
for one stay up late at night worrying about aluminum framed aircraft
carrying tens of gallons of gasoline crashing through the ten foot thick
reinforced concrete walls of a nuclear reactor. I know the engineers
designed them to withstand a direct hit from a 747, but I don't know if the
engineers considered the insidious effects of a skyhawk or Cherokee
screaming in at 120 knots.

I am have no problem letting the government search my medical records and
library records. I am sure that there are certain medical conditions that
only afflict terrorists. Maybe the government knows that all the people with
gout are really Islamic terrorists. Maybe the terrorists do all their
research for their terrorist plots by reading the books in the non-fiction
section of your local library.

These are the sacrifices we all will have to make to live in the post 9/11
world. We are all going to have to learn to give up some our personal
freedoms and liberties for the impression of a safer world.


"turbo" wrote in message
...
Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050525wa.html

What do you all think of this?

I don't find it unreasonable at all to restrict airspace around a
submarine
base, especially if it only extends to 2500 MSL. We should all try not to
make the current situation any worse by keeping our head screwed on
straight
and staying out of the restricted areas.

On Sat, 28 May 2005 00:21:32 GMT, "bill hunter"
wrote in ::

These are the sacrifices we all will have to make to live in the post 9/11
world. We are all going to have to learn to give up some our personal
freedoms and liberties for the impression of a safer world.

The situation is becoming a bit Orwellian. George got it right; he
was just 20 years premature.

"bill hunter" wrote in
:

Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm

As Benjamin Franklin said...

"He that would give up essential liberty for a little
security deserve neither liberty nor security."

(Or something close to that.)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"bill hunter" wrote in
:

Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm

As Benjamin Franklin said...

"He that would give up essential liberty for a little
security deserve neither liberty nor security."

(Or something close to that.)

He also said, in the same paragraph, "The only way to preserve liberty is to
never be secure.", (meaning: complacent. just as the US was pre 9/11.)



--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" wrote in
:


"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"bill hunter" wrote in
:

Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm

As Benjamin Franklin said...

"He that would give up essential liberty for a little
security deserve neither liberty nor security."

(Or something close to that.)

He also said, in the same paragraph, "The only way to preserve liberty
is to never be secure.", (meaning: complacent. just as the US was pre
9/11.)

Thank you for that. I need to brush up on my Franklin quotes.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Recently, Matt Barrow posted:

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"bill hunter" wrote in
:

Snipola of excellent piece of sarcasm

As Benjamin Franklin said...

"He that would give up essential liberty for a little
security deserve neither liberty nor security."

(Or something close to that.)

He also said, in the same paragraph, "The only way to preserve
liberty is to never be secure.", (meaning: complacent. just as the US
was pre 9/11.)

I disagree with your interpretation that "never be secure" means
"complacent". It could be just the opposite, to mean "responsibly
vigilant", or "know what's going on around you". It's not necessary to
impose on our freedoms to achieve this state of mind.

Neil

"Antoñio" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050525wa.html

What do you all think of this?

Just read my comments to the NPRM.

Suffice to say, the new prohibited area is stupid. Anyone who thinks
there's any point at all to it is a moron (just learned that word
today...sure is great!). It doesn't protect the sub base from anything, and
serves only to interfere with air navigation in the area.

Pete

Antoñio wrote:

Northwest flyers might want to look at this AOPA article that announces
the establishment of new Prohibited area over the Bangor sub base in
Washington state. Currently it's a TFR...

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite.../050525wa.html

What do you all think of this?

Antonio


It makes me a much bigger supporter of the committee's recommendation to
close a lot more military bases. If they don't exist, they can't have a
prohibited area. What a stupid decision...


Matt