Jump to content

War


RoseGoesToYale

Recommended Posts

The consensus now seems to be that it was an unintended missile strike.  Or at least the US isn't going to claim it was deliberate on Iran's part.  God knows; this is all just crazy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, thylacine said:

Here I sit at my near ancient computer, with cat on my lap, typing this, and sadly wondering...  is this the start of the End of the World... ?  The news is just so damn scary lately.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2020/01/08/mother-teamed-up-with-qanon-followers-kidnap-her-son-protective-custody-police-say/

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they in fact downed an aircraft, isn't this an act of war?

 

They also tried to cover it up if so. This makes it worse if it ends up being the cause. Makes it look intentional.

 

I love how Trump likes to blame others and refuses to accept he is partially responsible for this via escalating matters with a highly volatile foe. 

 

Best quote with regards to him are that he is playing checkers. "Global leader are playing chess"

 

Sad part is he thinks he is a chess master. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Perspektiv, causus belli here is difficult. If it was an aimed shot at that specific plane there would be no doubt. However, if it transpires that there was no intent to fire a missile, (human or systems error (likely)), or that it was targeted at a hostile military aircraft and hit the wrong target ( minimal likelihood), it need not be an act of war. The fact that most people on board were either Iranian, or of Iranian descent leads me to believe that this wasn't deliberate. 

Unfortunately, owing to the fact that they don't want to lose face, the Iranians won't admit this, also the reparations would be huge. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

@Perspektiv, causus belli here is difficult. If it was an aimed shot at that specific plane there would be no doubt. However, if it transpires that there was no intent to fire a missile, (human or systems error (likely)), or that it was targeted at a hostile military aircraft and hit the wrong target ( minimal likelihood), it need not be an act of war. The fact that most people on board were either Iranian, or of Iranian descent leads me to believe that this wasn't deliberate. 

Unfortunately, owing to the fact that they don't want to lose face, the Iranians won't admit this, also the reparations would be huge. 

 

I addressed this in the war thread. The missiles were shrapnel detonating missiles which detonate within meters of their target instead of striking their target. One of the benefits of these missiles is that they will cause less damage to unintentional targets as the shrapnel will not deploy correctly. The fact that they engaged and detonated on time in this very narrow window indicates that this plane was the designated target. The only possibility is that the wrong plane was targeted, but this would mean they were attempting to target a different commercial jetliner which is not much of a defense. If this was a rogue action then Iran should present these people for international justice. Otherwise they are complicit in the mass murder.

 

I noted earlier that Iran's move to stop honoring the nuclear accord was to punish America's allies, not America. This mass murder has also targeted America's allies, not America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skycaptain said:

Unfortunately, owing to the fact that they don't want to lose face, the Iranians won't admit this

Which is why a highly objective investigation is critical. 

 

If they can be shown tampering with anything, that in itself is an admission of guilt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

that in itself is an admission of guilt. 

Guilt or embarrassment. When two nations are and have been on a near-war footing making sure to have the best publicity is important. The USSR didn't admit it at first when Chernobyl occurred and they tried to hide it, but that doesn't mean they created a nuclear meltdown on purpose. And admitting a nuclear error is much less embarrassing then an accident shoot-down (if it was accidental). Considering 147 of the 170-some people were Iranian citizens it was probably accidental.

7 hours ago, natsume said:

One of the benefits of these missiles is that they will cause less damage to unintentional targets as the shrapnel will not deploy correctly.

Shrapnel is usually designed to create more damage... And deploy correctly? The missile explodes and shrapnel contained within explodes out with it, it does not necessarily deploy and it deploys automatically with the explosion that accompanies the missile. The only way shrapnel can fail to deploy correctly, as long as the missile is doing its job, is by a defect.

 

The fact the missile was launched did indicate it was in position and ready to go at a moment's notice, but so are missiles around DC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, daveb said:

Stupidity is not a good reason to start a war.

I think fragile ego and or inflated ego, stupidity and toxic masculinity have been behind a high percentage of global conflicts if not most. That and greed.

 

War is a business. National interests are assets and profits to be made.

 

Trump just isn't smart enough to hide true intent behind politics. In a sense this is a good thing. Makes him predictable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aebt-Ætheling said:

Considering 147 of the 170-some people were Iranian citizens it was probably accidental.

Iran could not afford a deliberate attack. It would just simply not be a good idea for them. 

 

They easily could have hit US targets that would have inflicted human death tolls. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Aebt-Ætheling said:

Guilt or embarrassment. When two nations are and have been on a near-war footing making sure to have the best publicity is important. The USSR didn't admit it at first when Chernobyl occurred and they tried to hide it, but that doesn't mean they created a nuclear meltdown on purpose. And admitting a nuclear error is much less embarrassing then an accident shoot-down (if it was accidental). Considering 147 of the 170-some people were Iranian citizens it was probably accidental.

Shrapnel is usually designed to create more damage... And deploy correctly? The missile explodes and shrapnel contained within explodes out with it, it does not necessarily deploy and it deploys automatically with the explosion that accompanies the missile. The only way shrapnel can fail to deploy correctly, as long as the missile is doing its job, is by a defect.

 

The fact the missile was launched did indicate it was in position and ready to go at a moment's notice, but so are missiles around DC.

 

These missiles are not designed to detonate on impact. They detonate when they are near the target. They did not detonate on impact, I'm unclear what you're disputing. Satellite imagery showed the missiles detonated before impact to deploy shrapnel. Do you know how a grenade works? It's the same concept but automated via remote guidance. Yes, you could also force a grenade to rupture via impact but it would not be nearly as effective as using it correctly. And, again, in this case the missiles detonated before striking any target. You're probably confused by the headlines - the missiles did not directly strike the airplane, they detonated within meters of the airplane and released shrapnel which caused severe damage to the plane and brought it down. These are highly sophisticated missiles with remote guidance, not point and shoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, natsume said:

These missiles are not designed to detonate on impact.

I believe we have a misunderstanding. I never claimed in what I said that missiles detonate on impact, they explode on proximity. I was disputing what you said which was:

On 1/10/2020 at 9:46 AM, natsume said:

One of the benefits of these missiles is that they will cause less damage to unintentional targets as the shrapnel will not deploy correctly.

My point was that shrapnel is designed to create maximum damage to anything within range, not less damage. And my point was that baring a malfunctioning missile shrapnel cannot fail to deploy; when the missile explodes the shrapnel flies. There might have been a way to disengage the missile (although maybe not, I am not aware that anyone has been able to pin down exactly what features the missile had or how old it was) but disengaging the missile would have nothing to do with shrapnel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it fails to deploy, I said it causes less damage. As in it is less effective. And a malfunction is quite possible when a missile is used incorrectly. Proximity explosives require them to have physical access to the target beforehand so this was most likely not a proximity based explosive.

 

Pointless arguments aside...

 

"human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif tweeted.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the salient point is that all sides agree that this wasn't deliberate, but a failure of command and control. Hopefully they all now dial down the rhetoric, realise that another Gulf war will only make a bad situation worse, and return to the uneasy stand-off 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...