and please use their services
Malaysian Airlines MH17 - plane crash, near Donetsk, Ukraine.
- Thread starter Dave *
- Start date
OP
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But he didn't, he stated that in stand alone mode the BUK system can be used with just the launch vehicle.
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Quite an interesting analysis of the Notams here: http://blog.wandr.me/2014/07/notam-malaysia-airlines-mh17/
I think the 32000 feet was probably because of the number of Manpads the rebels have. (Man Portable Air Defence Systems). There's been lots of pictures posted on twitter i.e. https://BANNED/Charles_Lister/status/473157936118648834/photo/1
An interesting thought is have the Russians learnt from Afghanistan? The CIA gave them to the Mujaheddin, trained them and the Russians were denied air superiority and lost several aircraft.
This could be a dangerous tactic if they fall into the wrong hands. With several around I've no doubt some will be trying to buy them for other terrorist activities.
I think we're essentially agreeing, and it's still all thoughts and conjecture at present, but lets not downplay the involvement the russians are having in the area with the rebels. Having taken back the crimea they want ukraine, or at least that part of it so they can have their own 'arab spring'.
In Obama's speach, he said:
Evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by a surface-to-air missile that was launched from an area that is controlled by Russian-backed separatists inside of Ukraine.
We also know that this is not the first time a plane has been shot down in eastern Ukraine. Over the last several weeks Russian- backed separatists have shot down a Ukrainian transport plane and a Ukrainian helicopter, and they claimed responsibility for shooting down a Ukrainian fighter jet.
Moreover, we know that these separatists have received a steady flow of support from Russia. This includes arms and training. It includes heavy weapons. And it includes anti-aircraft weapons.
I think you missed the bit where I said it can be used in standalone mode. It has it's own radar for detection and control of the missile. The gadfly is a very capable standalone weapons platform, not only for anti air (it's primary role) but has also been used for anti shipping strikes. The three parts adds in a command structure and integrated control with a number of these systems to make a scaleable area defence.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 10,944
- Name
- Sophia aka Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
one sad thing that crossed my mind last night is maybe its possible there are terrorist elements involved, chechens perhaps?
just out to create as much mayhem as they can :-(
i mean what do we realy know about who these so called rebels are?
just out to create as much mayhem as they can :-(
i mean what do we realy know about who these so called rebels are?
OP
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's entirely possible as many reports put a lot of the rebels as being from Russia, I doubt they are vetting them all that carefully when they arrive at a "recruiting centre" on the Russian side of the border.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
I would have thought that there is significant "evidence" to prove who did this. The US will have picked up transmissions, satellite images and local intel, etc., some of which they will release and some of which they will not because it would compromise their contacts and methods…… US "eyes" will have been focusing on this area since the start of the conflict
It depends how long the Russians and parts of the "civilised" world continue to sell and make weapons available, for their own commercial and political reasons, to "terrorists", bully boys and primitive thugs.
We are now at the stage where no commercial flight can be considered save from a bomb or rocket attack and if they want to use such on near or even far distance neighbours it is entirely feasible.
This is a "game changer" as they say
It will lead to greater "defence" spending by the US and other nations
It depends how long the Russians and parts of the "civilised" world continue to sell and make weapons available, for their own commercial and political reasons, to "terrorists", bully boys and primitive thugs.
We are now at the stage where no commercial flight can be considered save from a bomb or rocket attack and if they want to use such on near or even far distance neighbours it is entirely feasible.
This is a "game changer" as they say
It will lead to greater "defence" spending by the US and other nations
Last edited:
OP
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would doubt any Western airlines will be flying anywhere near their area of control (pretty sure Syria/Iraq area has been avoided for quite some time now).
chuckles
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,470
- Name
- Barry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Qantas flew over Iraq back in April this year
dejongj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 12,856
- Name
- Sir will do
- Edit My Images
- No
It is known exactly who has done this, when and from where. No doubt about it.
As simon said earlier, it is just the silly political manoeuvring and following the graph of consequences that is standing in the way of someone owning up.
Really shame for all those that have died. So many innocent lives taken. So many good people working for the health and prosperity of others on board of that plane.
As simon said earlier, it is just the silly political manoeuvring and following the graph of consequences that is standing in the way of someone owning up.
Really shame for all those that have died. So many innocent lives taken. So many good people working for the health and prosperity of others on board of that plane.
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
Qantas flew over Iraq back in April this year
Plenty of flights cross Iraqi airspace on a daily basis, and
indeed into BGW. Emirates, Royal Jordanian, Etihad, etc. Etc.
The only iraqi airport with problems right now is Erbil, and that's not because of ISIS, it's because of the backlog of freight in Turkey.
Non freight flights continue unhindered.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Firstly, it's not a game changers at all. Nothing here is new. Airliners have been shot down quite a few times since the end of WW2. Like this, in general, by accident, or rather miss identification. In fact, it's never been that safe for airliners, which is why there's security before you board and has been since the 1970's. It's also why you see openly armed Police at UK airports, and have since the 1980's, but didn't see Police openly armed anywhere else for years afterwards.
One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The US directly supplied Stingers to Afganistan 'terrorists'/Freedom fighters during the Soviet occupation, again, nothing new. Is it going to change, nope.
We aren't going to go to war over Ukraine, so it's very unlikely that defence spending will go up anywhere.
- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I certainly hope we stay out of the Ukraine situation. I on principle agree on defence spending and investing in a decent military but I believe in using it for British interests. Bits of Russian speaking Ukraine going back to Russia, who really cares?
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
Bernie, I'm not sure where your opinions come from, open your eyes, defence spending is increasing around the world, China, Japan, the US, South America, Israel, the Arab nations, amongst "new" nations as well as the so called "civilised" world, I could go on and on.
I did not say we were going to war over the Ukraine, and it depends who "we" are - BUT there is certainly a war in the Ukraine
"One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter" - that's really a unique statement - do we attribute that to you …… thanks for pointing it out.
Analyse what you have said, are you saying that every "group" that is fighting around the world are "freedom fighters"
The airliner was not shot down "by accident" - it may be a case of mistaken identity, but it was shot down intentionally
Most of your arguments are superficial and repeats of past quotes, we all know about Afghanistan and airport security and are aware of what has happen in the world…. I flew regularly around the world from the mid 1960's ………… what are you trying to say?
Every event like this changes the world or regional situation, It is definitely a "game changer"
Last edited:
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
Rob, it may be true that inside man is the ability to "kill" but again this is another "general" statement that means very little, over the course of history situations have changed and will change country by country and region by region.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,432
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I admire your optimism.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
Rob, I may be as cynical as you may be, but it could be argued that certain countries/regions are going through what Europe went through historically in order to achieve democracy/change and that such conflicts will move around the world and that we can do little to prevent this, maybe we can mitigate, but not prevent. By "we" I mean other countries in the world. There is always the "Armageddon" theory that the world will end through a major conflict, but we must hope that this is prevented, through our efforts, which include increased defence spending, and that we can protect the world from any such catastrophic events.
It this respect I may agree that little has changed.
IMHO, of course
Last edited:
OP
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Assuming you're talking about the Budapest Memorandums, we didn't therein "promise to look after" Ukraine. We just agreed not to attack or threaten them, or use economic coercion against them if they gave up their nuclear weapons.
The Budapest Memorandums don't oblige Britain to stick up for Ukraine. It's not like NATO.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure. To me this is pretty clear cut....
http://www.msz.gov.pl/en/p/wiedenob...ssion_to_the_treaty_on_the_npt?printMode=true
This internal conflict isn't an act of aggression or threat of aggression in which "nuclear weapons are used", though.
All that basically says is that if someone threatens to nuke Ukraine, the UK, US and Russia should demand the UN does something about it.
OP
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That is not what it says, read the section carefully.
That "or" is actually quite important in what the section is saying.
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
first written by Gerald Seymour in his 1975 book Harry's Game
No, you've misunderstood it.
I know what you're trying to say. That the bit about nuclear weapons only applies to the "threat of aggression". But this would be wrong. It qualifies "acts OR threats of aggression" that would require being raised at the UN as per the nuclear non-proliferation treaty the memorandums are a reaffirmation of.
The UK does not have a NATO style obligation to militarily defend Ukraine and nobody globally thinks we do. That's why distinctions have been drawn between the UK's response here and what it might be under a hypothetical situation where a similar thing had happened to a baltic state like Latvia, where we do have a responsibility to intervene.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fantasic book, and the first that was almost word for word when made into a TV series. The music was good as well, very haunting.
Anyway, I digress.
It's not! in real terms it's going down. Yes, there's capital expenditure programs that short terms raise spending, but longer term reduce it. For example the Astute program in the UK, costs a bomb now, but will last a very long time so overall it's a reduction over the swiftsure class. In fact in real terms our defence spending is down, so is the Germans, same with the US so is most Countries.
What I said was quite clear, on one side they are terrorists, on the other, and there are always supporters of what we regard as barbaric groups, they are considered differently. It's a perception not a fact.
I don't think anyone has suggested that Tommy the Terrorist sat looking as his radar, poked his head outside and said to his boss, "Lets shoot down this Malaysian Airliners for the hell of it". Any more than the captain of the USS Vinncens decided to shoot down the Iran Air for the hell of it. In that sense it was accidental. Call it whatever you like, again, it's perception of the meaning of an expression.
It was you that claimed it was more dangerous to fly now, not me, I was simply illustrating that the reality is quite different, There has always been a danger in flying from a security point of view. This incident makes no difference to that. I was a Policeman at a large West London airport, and I can assure you the threat was much the same before. That you don't know about the details doesn't change that. If you don't know what was going on in the 70's/80's and 90's, and clearly you don't, you aren't in a position to make that judgement. I am.
The only game that's changed is routings, and perhaps a bit more joined up thinking form now on. Oh and maybe people with pointy fire breathing spears might be a little bit more careful. Nothing else is going to be different, any more than it was after Korean Air or Iran Air.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
The simple “game changer” is that Putin is now a man that cannot be trusted, this is now clear to the world and they will take steps to deal with the situation. He has lost any political credibility that he had with the Americans and many other countries.
The political, economic and financial consequences against Russia will be severe and their status in the world has been greatly diminished. The world will start to look for a change of leadership in Moscow and support for this will also strengthen internally.
This is a terrible tragedy and it was a foolish decision to put such powerful weapons in the hands of semi trained “primatives” over which, at best, they seem to have little control.
all my other points are also correct
- defence spending worldwide is increasing …….. read the facts, I said defence spending worldwide
- I am aware of the expression and of how it should be used but suggesting that all terrorists groups are freedom fighters is just an insult to humanity, it maybe your perception but it can only be that ……. using it in the context of this thread, I just don't know what to say
- the plane was shot down intentionally, it was not an accident
- saying that terrorist threats worldwide to airline flights in the 60's and 70' was the same as they are today is just incorrect……..policeman who has patrolled Heathrow or not ……… the UK is not the world
The political, economic and financial consequences against Russia will be severe and their status in the world has been greatly diminished. The world will start to look for a change of leadership in Moscow and support for this will also strengthen internally.
This is a terrible tragedy and it was a foolish decision to put such powerful weapons in the hands of semi trained “primatives” over which, at best, they seem to have little control.
all my other points are also correct
- defence spending worldwide is increasing …….. read the facts, I said defence spending worldwide
- I am aware of the expression and of how it should be used but suggesting that all terrorists groups are freedom fighters is just an insult to humanity, it maybe your perception but it can only be that ……. using it in the context of this thread, I just don't know what to say
- the plane was shot down intentionally, it was not an accident
- saying that terrorist threats worldwide to airline flights in the 60's and 70' was the same as they are today is just incorrect……..policeman who has patrolled Heathrow or not ……… the UK is not the world
Last edited:
viv1969
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 29,452
- Name
- Bat-Frog
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 2,432
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Quite right,dictator Putin is going nowhere.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
It is more that his judgement cannot be trusted at all now ……. and this has been more and more the case in the past year or so ………...at least before this incident the world felt that there was just some control …….. now, especially with his statements regarding this incident and lack of action on the part of the Russians, no one knows what will happen next and it is this unpredictability that will cause extreme concern.
He seems to be prepared to "cross any line"; from the opposite side, no one in their right mind would ever go to war and the question now is how do you deal with a man like Putin ……. and what do you, (the West and the world), do next
Last edited:
You really have no idea what is going on in Ukraine do you?
"Russian backed rebels" - as described by the US (and unfortunately the UK and our media), really refers to orinary Ukraine citizens who speak Russian and who do not wish to be ruled by a non elected government in Kiev. There is a huge military operation taking place in Eastern Ukraine, and hundreds of citizens have been killed, mostly by the Ukrainian military.
The Ukraine military has been doing to the citizens of Donetsk and other cities, exactly what the Israelis are doing to the people of Gaza - they are being shelled and bombed, except our media is reporting that the Ukraine army is fighting "seperatists" or "rebels" or "terrorists".
The West would like to see Ukraine (the "government" in Kiev) regain control of Crimea - fat chance, because the people there have no wish to be ruled by Kiev.
This is nothing like the Falklands situation, and when you say - "The Ukrainians care" - which Ukrainians do you mean?
OP
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That could describe your post quite well.
???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_presidential_election,_2014
Not even the Russians are still trying to peddle the "non elected government" twaddle...
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
He's a Politician, of course he can't be trusted, nor can Cameron, Obarmy, or any other! They got where they got by lying through their teeth.
Simply because they are all in the same boat, yes, they'll puff and pant, but will anything happen that will make Putin take notice? nope. Oh they'll be sanctions, not many of which will make any difference to him, although may effect a few men & women on the street.
Europe is too scared of it's own shadow to do anything meaningful, and in any case, Russia has something we need, gas. Short term we can live without it, long term it'll all be quietly forgotten. If course it is proven that he had anything to do with it, which so far, publicly, it hasn't been.
On Aviation security, ah, my specialist subject, however as you've called my knowledge into question, show us the colour of your money. Prove that it is more dangerous now.
On defence spending have a read
http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/75
Tends to debunk your theory.
Simply because they are all in the same boat, yes, they'll puff and pant, but will anything happen that will make Putin take notice? nope. Oh they'll be sanctions, not many of which will make any difference to him, although may effect a few men & women on the street.
Europe is too scared of it's own shadow to do anything meaningful, and in any case, Russia has something we need, gas. Short term we can live without it, long term it'll all be quietly forgotten. If course it is proven that he had anything to do with it, which so far, publicly, it hasn't been.
On Aviation security, ah, my specialist subject, however as you've called my knowledge into question, show us the colour of your money. Prove that it is more dangerous now.
On defence spending have a read
http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/75
Tends to debunk your theory.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
Not at all …….Don't just pick up on the first source you get using a "google" search ……… the subject is far too important and life is not that simplistic
I said defence spending worldwide …… I tried to emphasise the word defence
You have to look at the figures carefully and the time periods involved ….. the significant US spending in Iraq has influenced the situation considerable and whether you call that defence spending is a matter of interpretation……… it is certainly military spending but I am not sure what it has to do with defence
What is happening worldwide is as important, as the enormous US military budget
Look at the situation country by country and region by region
This Institution is far more authoritative than that you have quoted and it is current
http://www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases/2014/Milex_April_2014
If Europe and the US had the same attitude as Russia to the situation we would really be in trouble. A shooting war will achieve nothing.
The Russians need the revenue from oil and gas as much as Germany etc., need the resource
If you are an experts on "aviation" security rather than "airport" security I would be interested to hear you views on the changes that have been made internationally as the world has moved on from searching bags, passengers and planes on the ground.
Whether Putin is a "politician" is a matter of opinion, but it is a great pity that you see other world leaders in the same light as Putin as far as trust is concerned
Last edited:
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am still waiting for an answer from you.
You say that we are now at a stage where
"no commercial flight can be considered save from a bomb or rocket attack and if they want to use such on near or even far distance neighbours it is entirely feasible." .
So, you made the comment come up with the goods, prove it.
In fact we have been at that stage since the 60's. Far more bombs on aircraft then than now. Less people killed granted, but aircraft tended to be much smaller then. Now more and a few less aircraft being shot down now than have been in the past.
Defence spending world wide is reasonably static, and probably down slightly when inflation is taken into account. You said it was increasing.
If you can't work out why arms spending in Iraq was supposed to be a defence, then you really have no hope!
It's called getting someone else to sort the problem before it gets to you. If the Iraqi's use weapons to keep AQ and offshoots busy, they wont be attacking you. Of course that was reliant on Iraqi's not running away. Oh well, best laid plans etc.
It's simply an extension of the wars by proxy of the 60's, and to be fair, nothing Russia isn't doing either. It's what we hope will happen in Afghanistan, although I am not holding my breath.
Either way, they have all the time in the world, and attacks against the UK, Spain, US or anywhere else have nothing to do with the Middle East, Afghanistan or anywhere else and everything to do with a desire for a Global Islamic state.
The changes made respond to new threats, it's very simple, as new information comes in, defence against those threats change. Obvious really. That forces them to come up with new ideas, that cost time and money, and we hope that information will leak, meaning a change our end again. So it goes on.
From their point of view, who knows they may well be leaking a LOB, knowing we will spend time and effort defending against that, meanwhile back at the farm, they are actually doing something else.
To rephrase Paddy, they only have to be lucky once, we have to be all the time.
In general though we are better at aviation security than we used to be. We could do better, like the Isreali's do. But it was a close run thing in the 80's for them at Heathrow. Luck played a huge part in that. And again, luck prevented one of the aircraft being shot down but not damaged by a missile, (intentionally) in Africa a few years ago. So even very strong and intrusive security isn't a guarantee.
We will always play catch up, so we had the shoe bomber, now shoes are checked. Liquid explosives plot, now there's restrictions on liquids. So it goes on.
You say that we are now at a stage where
"no commercial flight can be considered save from a bomb or rocket attack and if they want to use such on near or even far distance neighbours it is entirely feasible." .
So, you made the comment come up with the goods, prove it.
In fact we have been at that stage since the 60's. Far more bombs on aircraft then than now. Less people killed granted, but aircraft tended to be much smaller then. Now more and a few less aircraft being shot down now than have been in the past.
Defence spending world wide is reasonably static, and probably down slightly when inflation is taken into account. You said it was increasing.
If you can't work out why arms spending in Iraq was supposed to be a defence, then you really have no hope!
It's called getting someone else to sort the problem before it gets to you. If the Iraqi's use weapons to keep AQ and offshoots busy, they wont be attacking you. Of course that was reliant on Iraqi's not running away. Oh well, best laid plans etc.
It's simply an extension of the wars by proxy of the 60's, and to be fair, nothing Russia isn't doing either. It's what we hope will happen in Afghanistan, although I am not holding my breath.
Either way, they have all the time in the world, and attacks against the UK, Spain, US or anywhere else have nothing to do with the Middle East, Afghanistan or anywhere else and everything to do with a desire for a Global Islamic state.
The changes made respond to new threats, it's very simple, as new information comes in, defence against those threats change. Obvious really. That forces them to come up with new ideas, that cost time and money, and we hope that information will leak, meaning a change our end again. So it goes on.
From their point of view, who knows they may well be leaking a LOB, knowing we will spend time and effort defending against that, meanwhile back at the farm, they are actually doing something else.
To rephrase Paddy, they only have to be lucky once, we have to be all the time.
In general though we are better at aviation security than we used to be. We could do better, like the Isreali's do. But it was a close run thing in the 80's for them at Heathrow. Luck played a huge part in that. And again, luck prevented one of the aircraft being shot down but not damaged by a missile, (intentionally) in Africa a few years ago. So even very strong and intrusive security isn't a guarantee.
We will always play catch up, so we had the shoe bomber, now shoes are checked. Liquid explosives plot, now there's restrictions on liquids. So it goes on.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
Ramblings, I could say uninformed, but you must have been informed in some way or from some source - your arguments serve no purpose from a political, pragmatic or investment standpoint.
my comments are reasonably clear and logical
I'll put my money or goods where the facts tell me ………always have and investment research is usually accurate
fortunately your comments end on an internet forum
Last edited:
Very good Dave, I understood a lot from your meagre comments.
If you read the "Wiki" link which you have posted, then you will see that elections did not take place in Eastern Ukraine - Donbass, Donetsk and Crimea, which Wiki describes as being "annexed".
The fact remains, that the majority of people in Eastern Ukraine regard themsleves as being "Russian", and the Western media can do nothing to change their views.
I am not a Putin supporter, but I am also not a supporter of Obama, or Cameron for that matter.
This whole situation (not the tragic downing of a civilian airliner - which is most probably a tragic mistake) has been manufactured by the US and the EU, to try to prise the whole of Ukraine away from Russian influence.
It also has much to do with energy supplies, particularly with the intention of the US to supply Ukraine (and then Europe), with very costly liquid gas, instead of the gas supplies from Russia.
OP
Dave *
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,508
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You were attempting to propagate the old "unelected government" Russian propaganda that even Russia stopped doing after the election.
The Ukrainian government is elected and recognised as such by the whole world, including Russia.
Any edit on Wikipedia to claim portions of Ukraine are "annexed" have probably been done by pro-Russian separatists or similar, there is no legal opinion of any part of Ukraine being annexed (other than the unlawful annexation of Crimea by the Russians).
Then they have the choice to move to Russia, they don't have the right to begin an armed insurrection against the legitimate government, remember that Eastern Ukraine is part of the country of Ukraine, those borders are set and recognised by the international community (including Russia) and they cannot use violence to try and change that.