Centerfield

Old news. (Not that I particularly like Newt. )

Yes, an old story......

Well, as Simon ponders the dangers of allowing Americans to own laser-sighted .50 caliber sniper rifles and bullets that can down an airliner, he might remember the consequence of twisted principle. Newt, who cheated on his wife, handed her divorce papers as she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. He was "bounced" from Congress after ethics violations involving money sullied his image, which was more punishment than Clinton got for White Water's unproven "crimes". This new(t) admission from the "intellectual" leader of the charge to impeach Clinton, is Arkian. If you read Newt's version, one can see "principle" trumping the morality of behavior and yielding forth no real apology..

Imagine, as AQ began its operations, Newt tried to impeach Clinton and derail serious national security matters while he secretly out-sleazed Bill.

I used to be a Newt believer. The trouble is I truly believe the guy has no sense of right versus wrong and would do or say anything and destroy anyone's life for the sake of gaining political power. I think the fact that he was having an affair during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal is evidence of that. Smart man, but not a good one.

I've met Newt. I liked Newt. In person Newt is a very likeable guy. Same with Bill Clinton, I hear.

The trouble is I truly believe the guy has no sense of right versus wrong and would do or say anything and destroy anyone's life for the sake of gaining political power.

Same with Bill Clinton, I hear.

The few serial killers I've met all seemed to be reasonably likeable people too. No tattoos on their foreheads, no visible demon horns, no portable neon billboards towed on trailers on the backs of their cars, etc.

Newt, who cheated on his wife, handed her divorce papers as she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.

That's a perpetual claim of the Newt-haters, but it's simply not true. His wife was served with the divorce papers in 1980 before she was diagnosed with cancer. She later claimed that while she was in the hospital for cancer treatment (not surgery) in 1981, Newt tried to discuss the settlement terms with her on one visit. Bit of a difference there, and the claim (the real one, not the exaggeration) is based solely on the word of the ex, with no corroborating evidence. (Ask any divorce attorney how that goes.)

the dangers of allowing Americans to own laser-sighted .50 caliber sniper rifles and bullets that can down an airliner

Not bloody likely. You're not a shooter, are you? Aside from the extreme unlikelihood of a single-shot rifle of any caliber hitting anything THAT critical in the redundant and distributed control systems of modern airliners, ponder the ballistics of attempting precision shooting at moving objects at the distances involved. (Hint: Laser guides and telescopic sights would be less than helpful.)

Lastly, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, if all the politicians who sleazed around were laid end-to-end, I wouldn't be in the least surprised. ;-)

Tully,
I have never fired a .50 caliber, but a source explained to me that advanced rounds and laser sighting/triggers make airliners vulnerable during take offs and landings. There was even a CNN report over the weekend about the security dangers of having hundreds of thousands of such sniper rifles registered and unregistered across America (in regard to aviation). While I am not a gun control nut, you can easily see how such weapons and countless vantage points could explode rail and road tankers, refineries, power stations. I meant a laser that triggers the shot when the appropriate surface is dotted. A proper angle on a slower moving aircraft would allow several hits. A year back, the Alaskan pipelines allegedly was punctured by a large caliber round. The point I was implying was that our weapon-toting society and the growing ranks of those who would like to harm us (and sneak in) will force us to reconsider weapon policy and the Second Amendment. I believe there are .50 caliber rounds that could disable a turbo engine with a single hit. Again, this would be possible to do as a plane is landing or taking off. A disabled van ploy near Newark would provide ample opportunity to mask the noise and get very close. I would hope authorities are making then necessary adjustments, but controling the weapons themselves would be a good start. Banning the rounds would be another. Wait until there's a rail rifle. I suppose we shouldn't ban them, either.

As for Newt, I did not hear he was as likable in person as Bill. Then again, I never heard of Newt striking an associate. Here, my point was the “hypocritical” behavior of impeachment coming after years of failing to nail Clinton on White Water or Othergates. Newt knew he had only going after sexual “misconduct” in the end and there was no evidence of coercion or predation about it. Great expenditure of tax payer money. Newt had a special prosecutor go after Bill’s private life while he was doing a similar extramarital dance. Newt’s wife was not the only one who disparaged Newt’s “civility”. He doesn’t “remember” discussing divorce at one of his wife’s cancer treatment sessions. And Bill wasn’t sure what is, was. In any case, the Newt Witch Hunt yielded a blowjob. Bill’s “perjury” was in a case never prosecuted and the damage this Newtian partisan insanity encouraged, was to side track serious affairs of the state, rather than the sordid kinds. Yet, I’m sure Newt has only sympathy for Scooter. Conservatives seem to flip-flopping like Democrats. At least the Democrats have failed policy to bitch about in their effort to sidetrack real national security efforts. Is this the kind of balanced consistency Newt brings to bear on his intellectual positions? Is this the kind of moral acrobatics such thinking requires? Now Newt is a real pro-action kind of guy. Yep, the same guy who brought us the contract on America, wants to get the bad guys.

I have never fired a .50 caliber, but a source explained to me that advanced rounds and laser sighting/triggers make airliners vulnerable during take offs and landings

Max, you're obviously NOT a rifleman. Trusting CNN to report accurately on ANY firearms issue is like expecting Bill Clinton to NOT lie about his sex life. Your source is full of it. Such laser auto-fire technology exists--and has for a fairly long time--but it's not out there in the gun shows anymore than private stocks of LAWS rockets and Sidewinder missiles are. It's effin' military equipment, not available for legal civilian purchase. For the price of such a system on the black market you could pick up a half-dozen shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles. And note that it would almost HAVE to be vehicle-based if you wanted to make a getaway, as the Barrett .50BMG is NOT a "shoulder-fired weapon", and the trigger-sight system with stable tripod mount would push the carry weight well up out of one-man range or quick set-up tear-down. Rifles don't get MORE accurate when you bang them and their scopes around.

The idea of even fitting a Barrett with such a system is just plain silly Hollywood-style brainfarts, not a useful piece of equipment. (Fitting a full-auto vehicle-mounted BMG with one is a different story--but turret-mounted BMG's aren't exactly off-the-shelf items in gun stores either, and the vehicle would be just a wee bit conspicuous in traffic!)

If you're close enough to a FLYING aircraft to hit it with a .50 Barrett, you might as well lob rocks into its path by catapult, or shoot shotgun slugs from Grampa's old pump, either of which can also "take out a turbine." Heck, a duck can take out a turbine. The Barrett M82 has nice long range, to be sure, so you can shoot at things a long ways away with some expectation of hitting a stationary target. But so does my M1A .308, which has dropped deer at 400 yards without a scope. But when a bullet takes three or four seconds to make the mile-long-plus trip to target and the target's moving at a few hundred miles an hour, any "hit" even remotely close to aimpoint would be sheer happenstance. Well, actually, any hit at all would be pretty amazing.

That's leaving aside the question of the blatant illegality of auto-trigger systems and the major cost of such "liberated" military technology items on the black market. I can just hear the conversation at Bob's Bullet Bait & Tackle Shop now:

"Hey, Bob! Got any of them newfangled computer-tunable anti-aircraft auto-fire laser sighting systems I could kludge onto the old Barrett Fifty? I done tricked muh Barrett up with an angle-iron reinforced bed mount in the old pickup, but them optical scope-sights just don't do the trick past a hunnert yards on anything faster'n a turtle. Heck, she even wanders off-target when the wind blows a little and rocks the Chevy a touch on the shocks!"

"Why sho 'nough, Bubba! Got in a new stock just last week. Keep 'em right cheer under the counter...and there's a special. Today only, I can give ya 10% off. That'll be $241,783 after the sales tax...lemme get the forklift and I'll even put 'er in the truck for ya!"

A Barrett M82 could indeed be used by a skilled sniper to disable a stationary aircraft from a mile or more, but that's about it. Shooting down flying airliners? That's nutburger stuff. IOW, about what you'd expect from CNN.

Thanks for the info. It is not just CNN, but respectable military blogs. For instance, some military reports claim Iraq choppers seems to have been downed by triangulated fire from high caliber rifles (not while they were hovering). There are no .50 caliber rounds that could destroy an engine? How quickly could you fire several rounds from a Barrett? I guess you are saying that 250 miles an hour is too fast for a sniper to hit the cockpit or engines with a .50 caliber, even if the near-by aircraft (less than a mile) was moving directly away or towards the sniper. And that laser triggers aren't available to the public, even though they aren't advanced technology (lots of dual use). And dangerous rounds that could ignite tankers are hard to get too?

When I returned from Florida, I passed right down the center of NYC in a 727. I could see carriages in Central Park below me. I could see my rooftop and several garbage cans. To a person looking South from ten stories, they would see me moving slowly, directly towards them. I assume you are saying that it would be impossible for someone to set up a tripod and take several shots at the slowly approaching target. Oswald seems to have preformed a greater nefarious miracle in a shorter period. I also assume you believe laser triggers are a long way off for the terrorist as well as exploding armor piercing rounds.

That leaves other targets your Barrett could ignite. Refineries don't move. I'm glad you draw the distinction between military and private weapons, unlike Simon. I see there has been a recall of privately owned F-14s. I could also understand that one day a hunter might complain that rail rifles make little of the noise that alerts other prey, so why ban them? It would be a good hunter's weapon. Some coil guns already claim to be lethal. I'll bet you a case of beer, that by 2017, there will be portable advanced rifle systems that can hit moving targets several miles away. Right now, pilots report being blinded by radio shack quality lasers pointed up from the ground. I am glad there is still a ways to go before various components come together in an affordable "terrorist" package that presents a threat which today, could not be defended against.

Where would you recommend a citizen (with no criminal record) to go to fire military grade rifles and guns for the experience? And don't say enlist or national guard....."Special ranges" in the North East? Having never fought in battle, it is hard to get a sense of the shear violence of today’s fire power, even the small caliber weapons. Perhaps when I vist Israel this Summer.

AQ and .50 caliber rifles

To clarify my diversion (because this issue has come up before on different threads)

1. CNN was clearly wrong in suggesting .50 caliber rifles were a growing and significant threat to airline safety.

2. Tully is right that without a rather clumsy and heavy set-up involving very expensive add-ons, positioning 2000 meters or so in front of an airliner taking off, it would be extremely lucky if a terrorist or a few could take one down.

3. To be effective on moving targets, high caliber rifles with ranges exceeding 1500 meters would need both laser tracking and a computer which would calculate wind speed and velocity, then trigger the shot only when the dot was on the sweet spot in front of the moving target. This would apply to a rifle whether it was a "rail" rifle or a conventional one. Yes, you could pack it all into a roofless van or pick-up truck, but again, there is only a small area to fire from where the angle and distance of approaching aircraft makes such terrorism achievable. I do think my scenario about the tenth floor view is possible given Tully's requirements, but it would be infinitely easier to fire off a missile from that same rooftop. As for airports, I doubt Airport Security will allow said vehicle to park 1500 meters in front of runways. As Tully said, target is moving too fast to hit perpendicularly. And water-based platforms would be too unstable in the case of runways at JFK.

4. Smart rounds are a long way off. These would sprout fins and help direct round to hit moving target.

5. Missiles represent the greatest danger to aviation now. Tully is also right that sitting and fully fueled airliners ARE a .50 caliber target.

6. .50 caliber rifles and their various types of rounds are a serious threat to stationary targets as well as slower moving train and truck tankers; something CNN didn't even mention. We will have to deal with these weapon advancements as they increase and proliferate. I wonder what Newt's position on that is?

And Tully, if it costs a million for the effective rifle, I think the terrorists would pay Bubba the money for that there laser trigger thiggamgig.

Helicopters aren't airliners, Max. You could do some real damage to low-flying helicopters with Barretts. They come in low and close and slow. You could also do real damage to them with my M1A, or a .22, or an AK-47, or a Stinger MANPAD, or a catapult throwing lengths of chain into the rotors--it's all in where it gets hit and how much. Of course, someone in combat will use what they have handy.

I assume you are saying that it would be impossible for someone to set up a tripod and take several shots at the slowly approaching target.

You would assume wrong. You can fire away all you like (and then say hi to the boys at Gitmo, IF you live through the neutralization)--but anywhere in the US near an airport, you'll be quickly noticed, and you'd have to be close to catch an airliner low enough and slow enough to have any chance at all to hit it. An airliner (the specific object referred to, I note) is simply not susceptible to being downed by a few .50 rounds, even at close range, even if you could manage to hit it in flight. At longer ranges (300 yards plus) you're simply not going to hit it with a Barrett at all unless it's stationary. You could disable one on the ground with a some well-placed shooting, but that's just an annoyance. You won't knock one out of the sky.

If you actually had access to that VERY expensive hi-tech sighting auto-fire system, you'd be very unlikely to waste it adapting it to a Barrett. It would remove any advantage the rifle has in portability, and boost the cost up into the hundreds of thousands. I don't know how much Stingers and such are going for on the black market, but you could most assuredly buy many of them for what such a Barrett would cost IF you had that kind of access to military arms.

If you did adapt one to a Barrett, it'd be a mostly worthless weapon--it would have all the DISadvantages of a trailer-mount real-deal BMG or 20mm AA, with none of the high-volume fire advantages. A Barrett's virtue is its accuracy, not volume of fire. You do NOT get pinpoint accuracy with high volume of fire.

Using a Barrett against fuel storage is also a "Why?" thing. Even using incendiary slugs, penetrating the tank and sending the round into the fuel likely won't ignite the fuel. The round would be burning inside a cool liquid mass with no oxygen to support fuel combustion. You could maybe hit a fuel tank at up to 1.5 miles and put a leak in it. Big deal. With a standard mortar you could hit it at FIVE miles with an HE round and blow it right the F up--and be on the road almost before the round hit. So why use the much less effective approach that also carries the higher capture potential?

A Barrett is a long-range sniper rifle, useful against unarmored or lightly armored targets at ranges up to a mile or more. But it's really not good for much of anything else. Sniping is like big-game hunting, it relies on slow or stationary targets. For almost any scary scenario other than simple sniping you can think of for a Barrett, there are better, cheaper, and easier tools.

There's a firearms training place in Nevada that has full-auto courses, and I hear there's local ranges around the country that have SMG's for range rentals. Take $$$$. They burn ammo fast. An MP-5 9mm goes through fifty rounds ($10) in about 4 seconds. Same with the venerable old Thompson .45 SMG. Expensive hobby.

Cross-posting.....

Trains--They'd be more likely to pay $2K for some C4 and pressure or radio detonators and simply mine the track. Once again, why do things the hard and expensive way?

The best anti-armor "insurgent" tactic I ever heard was one used by the Czech and Hungarian resistances against the Nazis, and later against the Soviets. They would put upside-down dinner plates painted grey on the road in front of advancing tanks. The tank drivers would think they were mines, and slow down or stop to either take out the "mines" or drive around them. Which would funnel them into "kill" zones where they were extremely vulnerable to that amazing high-tech insurgent weapon, the gasoline-filled glass-bottle Molotov.

As soon as the tankers got hip to the tactic and started just driving over the dinner plates to avoid being toaster ovens, the insurgents started placing REAL mines in the road mix. Lather, rinse, repeat.

High tech. :-)

Thank you for your comments. Again, to repeat your words: given the cost and alternatives, terrorists would be wise to use items other than sniper rifles. I have heard other comments (besides yours) explaining that getting close enough to down airliners landing or taking off with rifles will probably get you to Gitmo and likely NOT down the intended aircraft. However, I am told IF rail rifles ever make it onto the black market (let alone our military), their velocity, silence and power would present a danger to aviation. A decade?

By the way, CNN was talking about domestic aviation, not choppers in Iraq. Even I know that beyond 2000 meters a .50 caliber won’t reach. I have heard reports of choppers being hit while flying fast and low in Iraq, not hovering. And these same choppers appear to have brought down by small arms fire. I heard Saddam had hundreds of shooters firing into the suspected PATH of on coming aircraft (flying low). Perhaps the shear volume of rounds added up. Of course, hovering choppers are vulnerable. We need some defense. Another decade?

The only other speculation I might add to your remarks is that rounds are becoming more powerful and several shots at a tanker or storage drum might actually work with better explosive or incendiary rounds. There are systems now that can take out mortar rounds, though I doubt they are in Jersey. Given better add-ons and better rounds, the terrorist could take advantage of the portability of rifles and scram.

Yes, Israel might be a cheaper place to fire guns. I handled a .22 blot action pretty well in camp earning a sharpshooter of some higher level ( you know -prone and kneeling at 50 yards). I knew some locals in Ohio who took me to a range to fire some Macs and a semi-automatic when I was in college. With all this discourse about war, I though it might be eye opening to get a bit closer to the sound and smell. War sucks and we often forget the bone crunching brutality of even a ball round. Of course, I could just pay a visit on Walter Reed.

Some one I know said, "Want to see the horror of a war zone? You're able enough, volunteer to drive a truck in Iraq". I am not sure if the DOD would take me, nor do I think there would be an apartment here when I got back. Basic training at this point would be an experience I think I could survive, but I'm not sure what I could contribute to our military effort, besides giving blood or money.

Put no weight in chickenhawking, it's a morally and intellectually corrupt rant.

Fifty-cal rounds aren't really getting any more powerful (you can only put so much powder in a shell--or in a bullet--or through a barrel) though they are getting a bit more diverse. But it's still high-tech dreaming to think they could be used for some things at distance with current tech, much less current civilian tech. A good incendiary round isn't very good at armor-piercing (AP), and vice versa. And at mile-type distances AP's don't work all that well anyway--for the AP effect you have to be somewhat close to utilize that high initial muzzle velocity combined with hardened rounds. By the time a bullet has traveled a half-mile or more the kinetic energy remaining is dropping off rapidly.

Of course, if you're not at distance you don't need the Barrett qualities anyway. As far as I know, our in-flight helicopter knockdowns have all come from close-range ground fire from AK-47 SMG's and such (common as dirt, they're everywhere) and from assorted types of shoulder-fired rockets. As I said, get close enough and you can lob a chain into the rotors or a rock into the air intake.

I don't especially care that Newt had affairs, in particular. I just think its hypocritical to do blather about the "character matters" stuff about Clinton (which Newt did) while unable to keep his own zipper tightly sealed.

If "character matters" to Newt, then frankly he has no business running for dog catcher--much less POTUS.

"Put no weight in chickenhawking, it's a morally and intellectually corrupt rant."

And excuse me when I edge into that zone out of shear frustration. I do not take violence lightly, nor fail to consider the body bags on both sides before I ring any alarms. Maybe its my heritage. I was always taught not to wait until the enemy is at the door. I don’t trust others to protect our asses. And everyone thought the Germans were basically rational. Its not fear, but foresight that my political compatriots seen to believe IS fear induced by the Righties.

It is difficult to advocate action, being so disconnected to the personal sacrifice it requires. Unnecessary loss of life bothers me. That was my anger last year. I simply don't believe lives could not have been saved by sounder tactics and I believe my support of removing Saddam "eventually" helped lend support to Republican mistakes that resulted in dead Americans, dead Iraqi civilians and a tougher job in containing Iran. Feeling guilty? A bit, but only because words are cheap and blood priceless. My posts make me feel like I must do something…….

I'm beginning to believe that Americans only support the self-defense of retaliation by hired soldiers and technology when our immediate security is threatened. Yeah, nuke Tehran if we get hit, now that’s a great idea -not. Meanwhile people like Bobby are in the line of fire, as Americans believe our effort is in vain.

And to show you my dilemma, I agree with Carla on Newt, but could not disagree with her more about our being in the Middle East, trying to support action along with the chickenhawks while the brave do the real fighting.

And to show you my dilemma, I agree with Carla on Newt, but could not disagree with her more about our being in the Middle East, trying to support action along with the chickenhawks while the brave do the real fighting.

Uhh....huh?

Carla,
While I am sure you and I agree on various “liberal” ideas from environment to immigration reform (perhaps, somewhat agree), I disagree with what I have gleaned from your blog concerning our foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East. Some of the comments are so over the top, they are funny. This lone issue (my pro-action view -not "bomb all Muslims"), places me in the "chickenhawk" group of advocates, -those who did not serve yet warn of growing international threats to Western security if we do not carry and sometimes use a BIG STICK. While I do not consider myself to be warmongering when I support military action to diplomatically irresolvable problems or post alarming news, I often feel uncomfortable advocating such hawkish views given my lack of military service. It is easy to advocate without personal risk, yes?

Despite Lieberman's liberal record, he was booted from the Democrat Party because of his singular support of removing Saddam and his making the ultimate sin in agreeing with Bush’s “regime” change which Democrats supported under Clinton.. There was a time when Democrats were not the "anti-war" Party and advocated the support of Democracies all over the world in money and military support. Even Carter was sad to see the Shah leave Iran. I can only imagine the results of Stalin’s grip on Iran after Western forces withdrew. I wonder who would have had the better Human Rights record, Stalin, the Mullahs or the Shah? Human Rights meant more to Liberals than denouncing our own country, Israel and those countries supporting us. While Democrats love to blame Rove for their sudden change of color, no amount of political frustration should cause Liberals to morph into the very Leftists, Truman through Clinton rejected. Reid, Obama and Clinton can all show up at AIPAC and talk tough about Iran and terrorism (AQ-Muslim Brotherhood), but top leaders can't have it both ways. The policies thus presented by Democrats would put Israel in greater danger as well as the US. We should not put Israeli self-interest before our own, but once upon a time, Israel and the US were on the same page, more or less.

So again, while I agree that Newtian logic does not work for me, politically, I can hardly embrace those who want to reinvent what LIBERAL is and ignore the sacrifice Liberal Democracy must make to protect its self-interest and survival. Conflict is often ugly and painful. Our adversaries are not going to roll over. My political center does not revolve around Pace either saying homosexuality is immoral, or that a “surge” might not work. In broad strokes, we are facing a coming irreversible consequence of terrorism, extremism and technology forming a dangerous nexus. The Western world would rather entertain themselves or attack their own leaders. This is not chickenhawk thinking or my impersonating a neocon. Were it not for Athenians and Spartans we might all be speaking Farsi. If we hadn't removed Saddam by now, by his own words, he would be rushing to catch Iranian WMD and missile technology while funding terror in the Middle East. History is not pre-determined, nor is liberty immortal. I believe you argue against the use force, rather than how to use it wisely, because somehow, you do not see the same threats as I do facing America, nor does it appear you see the same benevolence in much of our modern history. Many former Democrats and Republicans were forced to become Independents given the dangerous and foolish political warfare between extremes. And as Democrats face defeat in Congress over Iraq, they turn to prosecuters being fired in an effort to increase political traction.

If we all agreed on everything, wouldn't lif be pretty boring?

Just a thought. :-)

Yep, and I don't think this is chickenhawking.

Tully,
I thought you might find this interesting. An anti-materiel rifle . I am not sure how much this is "secret" or unobtainable given the parties producing them. Another Croatian version risks the shooter's limbs and you're probably right about the limits of conventional "rifles" and the munition they can send.

GOP defeated the Senate Iraq Resolution, the struggle is still on the ground far away.

300 Spartans please?

No replies necessary........

Sorry to be late to the party. I wouldn't say it's the end of the road for Newt, but it does impose a particular difficulty, given that the people most likely to line up behind Newt are also the kind of folks who are bothered by this sort of marital infidelity. That said, though, given the circumstances -- viz., that there are no ideal candidates in this race so far for social conservatives, and the frontrunners are people even less palatable to social conservatives -- the question isn't whether he's a flawed man, the question is whether those flaws can be set aside considering that someone is going to win the nomination. There's a picture that's painted of social conservatives as a bunch of dummies, but it's not really accurate. They understand full well that confronted between to unacceptable choices, there's always a lesser evil and it's always better than more evil. The difficult part is identifying the lesser evil.

All considered, this isn't new information, it's just a strategy for confronting information that was already out there, and I don't think it means Gingrich has hit the buffers.