9-11 Thought Experiment...

[cherokeeprogressive]

Here's the situation...

Boeing Dreamliner carrying 585 souls en route from La Guardia to LAX. Deviates from its course and discontinues radio contact.

It's descending and gaining speed while flying right at downtown Chicago. It's now over heavily populated suburban Chicago and on a path that takes it directly to the Sears Tower.

At this moment, it's less than 90 seconds from the Sears Tower, but over a heavily populated area.

Six fighter aircraft are following it. Two on each wing and two trailing. All are armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles and the F-14's are carrying AIM-54 Phoenix missiles that are capable of breaking it apart.

That last paragraph took you 15 seconds to read and now you've only got 75 seconds to make up your mind what to do.

Shooting it down might kill tens of thousands of people in the debris path. Letting it go will kill thousands of people in the Sears Tower.

It's going faster now, still descending, and still on a straight path at the tower.

Make up your mind, and pay the consequences later.

What's your pick? Tower? Or suburbs?

[Mika]

1. Who is in charge of this op in this scenario? Cheney? n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. You. I thought I made that clear.

[Chan790]

3. tens of thousands is pessimistic.

knowing something about planes and how they come apart...the only reason the shootdown breaks even 1000 is because the passengers get you halfway there. A shootdown wouldn't kill even 1500 people, let alone 10,000+.

That's not me making a choice, it's me pointing out that your though experiment doesn't work. The direct hit is 100% certain more fatal than a shootdown.

[Ghost in the Machine]

7. My thoughts, exactly... death count WAY too high in the shoot-down scenario... n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. Okay... you prove my point without intending to. What's your justification for shooting?

Lack of radio contact? Trajectory? Lack of time?

What if the plane was experiencing a mechanical difficulty and the pilots were so consumed with trying to fly they couldn't maintain radio contact?

What if they were dealing with a cockpit intrusion and defended the aircraft... fought off the intruders... and were in control of the aircraft but less than 30 seconds from the tower?

My point here is shooting down an aircraft because you can't communicate with it is folly.

[jwirr]

19. Time of day would also help. Where are the people?

At home or at work?

[egduj]

4. I know the plane is just a hologram and the sears tower is already loaded with thermite.

Can't fool me with your silly trick questions.

[greyl]

5. You can't know that "letting it go will kill thousands of people in the Sears Tower".

So, hope for the best and hold fire, I'd say.

There's no certainty of the consequence of trying to shoot it down either. Was your use of "might" and "will" in your thought experiment deliberate?

[Ghost in the Machine]

6. I would have to opt to shoot it down, personally. Have the Fighter Pilots already tried to make

the Boeing pilot change course? I think your death toll from the "debris path" is way too high, for one. I'm betting on the missiles/rockets to completely destroy the plane in the air with the only BIG parts falling might be the engines and landing gear.

How are you estimating "tens of thousands" being killed in the debris path?

Peace,

Ghost

[MohRokTah]

9. Yep, worst case scenario over most populated Chicago suburb would be 100-300 dead. eom

[MohRokTah]

8. There is no "Sears Tower". There is a "Willis Tower". eom

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. ROFL

[postulater]

11. Shoot it down obviously.

it is over Lake Michigan and the debris will land in the lake.

[mopinko]

12. lake is on the east. plane is coming from the west.

[postulater]

13. LaGuardia Airport is in New York.

The plane is coming from the east.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. That's my issue

If it's coming from LaGuardia, it's over the lake, unless it's made a pretty dramatic (90 degree) turn either north or south (or a complete 180 for a western approach) after having already crossed the lake. That's the only way it could be going from LaGuardia to LAX and still be over a "heavily populated suburb."

At that point, the "uncertainty" posited by the OP disappears. There is no accidental N/S approach from LaGuardia to Chicago (much less a western approach!). I wish the OP's scenario had a better sense of geography.

[mopinko]

22. my bad.

saw the lax, and, well, yeah.

[ScreamingMeemie]

14. My pick is to move on from 9/11.

[reddread]

17. let's switch back to the Pentagon

amazingly unprotected.
i think there is a third factor being left out here.
the manure content.

[Lee-Lee]

18. There is no way the debris from one aircraft kills tens of thousands

in the suburbs.

Worst case and it slams down intact maybe you destroy 4-8 city blocks.

So far fewer people are at risk than the estimated.

So I would need one critical piece of information- what day of the week and what time of day is it?

Weekday, during the normal working hours? Sears tower will be full of people, many homes in the suburbs empty. Outside regular workday hours or the weekend? Sears Tower is mostly empty but the suburbs will have more people in their homes.

[ryan_cats]

20. The only correct answer is

The only correct answer is to fly it into an orphanage where the impact won't matter.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Damn somebody finally gets it.

I had given up.

[Straw Man]

23. Unless I'm reading this wrong ...

... it's the classic "baby on the train tracks" problem in ethics. If you shoot, then you have killed the occupants of the plane and those people on the ground. If you do nothing, then the presumed hijackers are responsible for the death toll.

The question then becomes whether inaction is a form of action and incurs similar responsibility. I would suggest that this is true only if the possible outcomes are known to a certainty, which they rarely, if ever, are.