Antimissile Steps Won’t Protect LAX

Re “LAX Guards Against Portable Missile Attacks,” Dec. 14: Anyone who lives near Los Angeles International Airport knows that spending millions of dollars on a higher fence and more police won’t prevent anyone armed with a shoulder-fired missile from shooting down a plane landing or taking off from the airport. As the experts quoted in your story point out, the reason is simple: There is no way to secure the surrounding area. Why would anyone try to sneak past security at the airport when they could easily launch a missile from the beach, a backyard under the flight path, the parking lot of a nearby fast-food restaurant, or any other place just beyond the fence?

Even if the plane was armed with an antimissile defense system, the close proximity of the launch site might not give it enough time to detect and destroy the missile before it hit the plane. Any additional money proposed for increased airport security against such a threat would be better spent on improving intelligence gathering, increased border security and inspections of incoming cargo at ports.

Though the long-term solution is one of lessening the threat by stopping the spread of the terrorist ideology that promotes the use of such weapons, unless these missiles are kept out of the U.S., the harsh reality will become not a matter of if, but when.

Thomas L. Difloure

Marina del Rey

*

Re “Merging LAPD, Airport Police Not Easy, Officials Say,” Dec. 14: For my money, I want my airport police to board a jet when a hijack distress call goes out, false or otherwise. Now politicians are attacking airport police for doing their jobs. Imagine what they’d be saying if they hadn’t boarded the jet. I, for one, believe the airport police did the right thing by erring on the side of caution and am grateful to them.

Joe Neulight

Venice