The post has more to do with the idea that we can protect ourselves through purely defensive measures.
We can’t. The deviants in this case are agressively targeting and attacking people, and not just a small segment of people but the entire “West”, the “Americans and their allies”, and the “Zionists”.
This is a rare case where the only defense is an offense. That doesn’t mean we go over and just bomb the crap out of the Middle East (however tempting that may be to some people), it means WE go after the perpetrators agressively ourselves. That includes policework to track the guilty down, some spying, intelligence gathering, and yes, the occassional killing of people. I’m sorry, all you peace-lovers who don’t want to study war no more, but we’re going to have kick some butt from time to time. Passive resistance does not work against people who have the goal of your complete, total, and utter destruction.
But to get back to ground vs. air defenses… the reason the Unspoken Tactic is NOT obvious is because most people are not pilots, are not used to thinking in terms of flight and its capabilities, and just plain too accustomed to existing solely on the ground.
Here’s another example - prior to 9/11, the rules were to cooperate with hijackers, because until that point cooperation almost always resulted in more people alive and unhurt and the end of the day that resistance and confrontation. Why? Because back in the Good Old Days ™ hijackers wanted things like a trip to Cuba, or to defect from somewhere, or lots of ransom money, or something like that. At 9/11, there was a paradigm shift (a way overused phrase, but in this case the most concise term). The hijackers changed the rules. They didn’t want anything BUT the airplane, and a lot of people dead. Now, no one in their right mind will cooperate with ANY hijacker ANYWHERE. This didn’t require a change in technology, or tactics, or anything but a change in a way of thinking. Yes, the possibility of crashing an airplane into a building had occured to people before - in fact, when the WTC was designed, it was considered what would happen if a 707 hit the buildings - but in was mostly in the context of an accident, not a “delibrate”. (Among other things - a WWII bomber did accidently crash into the Empire State Building in the 40’s, so the info really was all there) Everything needed to pull off a 9/11 stunt has existed in the world since… oh… when did the British Comet jetliner go into service? Sometime in the 1950’s? The technology has existed for 50 years, maybe more. But now that the idea is out of the bag, now that it is conceivable and known and done, the danger will always remain. You will never see another passenger jet built without some protection for the cockpit crew designed in from the get-go.
Right now, attacking jets exists in a particular paradigm. The Unspoken Tactic comes out of a slightly different way of thinking about the problem. As I said, the technology to accomplish it has been around a LONG time… but not the way of thinking required to perform it. Right now, such thinking is limited to only a few, and most of us probably had no reason to think such thoughts until an Isreali charter jet was fired upon by SA-7 missiles in Kenya. And, the vast majority of those few have zero motivation to perform such acts, but significant motive to avoid them, prevent them, and just not reveal our thinking on the matter. When the paradigm shift occurs, the playing field will change and it will be obvious to all what the danger is… but until then, why push for the change?