This subject has been in the news in mid-february, I remember having read a Washington Post article on it, and that already the first outlines of such a law have caused high waves in international politics and aviation business. I have followed many discussions, have followed both sides of the controverse, and despite the fact that I am no expert of other country's constitutions, I find the scenario of remaining unprepared for further attacks of hijacked airliners against public targets horrifying. The proponents often argue that it is weighing up a death toll of 200 or 300 against possibly thousands of deads as the result of a sucessful attack, and therefor ethically justifiable, whereas the opposition against this law argues that weighing up lifes against each other, and sacrifcing the lower number is a cold atrocity against humanity. The other argument is that engaging a hijacked civil airliner is an offense against international law and the German constitution, which strictly rules out the deployment of military forces unless the country is under attack. While I can understand that from an ethical point of view, I wonder what these politicians are thinking of as useful protection against this scenario. In fact, the discussion reaches back to the days immediately after 9/11. Then it's been the scenario of an airliner being flown into a nuclear power plant, maybe the most dramatic of all cases, and the option of stationing Air Defense units of missile launchers and artillery at threatened objects to engage possible hijacked airliners, which enter a prohibited area and don't react to radio calls any longer. Of course, this could include the possibility of engaging an airliner which enters the prohibited area due to navigational error and is coping with a failure of their radios, which represents a very rare probability, but a probability nonetheless. The scenario has expanded meanwhile, after a mentally disturbed pilot threatened to crash his motor glider into the European Central Bank building in Frankfurt, and it has come to the attention of aviation agencies and the department of transport that several stadiums for the soccer world cup are sited in the near of airports, which would mean a minimal timespan between detection of the threat and commencing countermeasures; stationing fighter planes and air defense equipment would be made necessary to face this threat. Especially after considering the limited options of defense measures against an attack as described above, my position would be in favor of such a law. I can understand very well how someone can condemn this procedure from an ethical point of view, but after a look at the possible effects, I think it is a justifiable means of defense.