So we are back to the Cold War again?

@Blickers,

The US Navy has posted a video showing one of its planes being intercepted by a Russian jet in international airspace over the Black Sea.

It called the Russian SU-27 aircraft's interaction with its EP-3 Aries "irresponsible" and "unsafe" due to the "high speed pass".

But the Russian embassy in the US tweeted that its crew was "preventing a violation of Russian airspace and followed all necessary safety procedures".(Text source: BBC)

Such games were done frequently in the 70' of last century.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

LOL. You've got to stop reading those right-wing news sources-they get printouts from the RT, Russia Today network and just post them on their sites. Saves money on reporters.

If facts and history are rightwing sources, that is evidence that conservatives are on the right side of history.

Blickers wrote:

Now here is how it went when Russian fighters , (Syria) met American fighters, (Israel), in the 1980s.

The Syrians were flying obsolete Vietnam-era MiGs (and configured for ground attack). And the Syrian pilots had no dogfighting skills.

That's not how things turned out when American pilots in the Vietnam and Korean wars went up against then-modern air-superiority fighters flown by highly skilled Soviet pilots.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

That makes the US a target not a battlefield.

That's a distinction without a difference.

glitterbag wrote:

How can you possibly be so irresponsible and glib.

No such irresponsibility or glibness.

glitterbag wrote:

By the way, our adversaries that have Nukes have never abandoned the likely targets in the US or in Europe.

I would imagine that the reductions in nuclear arsenals have thinned out the targets a bit.

I wish Trump would restart manufacturing of lightweight half-megaton (well, 455 kiloton but close enough) MIRV warheads. We were just starting to make them when the Cold War ended and manufacturing was closed down.

If all of our ICBMs and SLBMs carried half-megaton MIRVs, our arsenal would be much more formidable.

glitterbag wrote:

Where do you get off, sitting somewhere in Michigan telling Walter about battlefields??????

I just like pointing out facts.

Reality was the exact opposite of what he described. It wasn't them being the battlefield for our war. We were the battlefield for their war.

We were risking annihilation simply to prevent them from being conquered by the Soviets.

glitterbag wrote:

Please think, and if that's too hard, consult a library before you start comparing potential nuke targets with the destruction of Europe during WWII.

I always think. That's why it is so easy for me to point out everyone's factual errors.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

glitterbag wrote:
That makes the US a target not a battlefield.
That's a distinction without a difference.

And why is it done by the military, the Geneva Convention etc? I'd always read and thought, a battlefield was ground warfare (otherwise it would be "battlespace", but that's still different to 'target').

But since you're always right, it will be so easy for you to point out the errors.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And why is it done by the military, the Geneva Convention etc?

It isn't done by the military or the Geneva Convention.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I'd always read and thought, a battlefield was ground warfare (otherwise it would be "battlespace", but that's still different to 'target').
But since you're always right, it will be so easy for you to point out the errors.

The battlefield is wherever the fighting is.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The concept of the battlefield arises at various points in the law of war, the international law and custom governing geographic restrictions on the use of force, taking of prisoners of war and the treatment afforded to them, and seizure of enemy property. With respect to the seizure of property, it has been noted that in ancient times it was understood that a prevailing enemy was free to take whatever was left on the battlefield by a fleeing enemy—weapons, armor, equipment, food, treasure—although, customarily, "capture of booty may take place some distance from the battlefield; it may transpire a few days after the battle, and it may even occur in the total absence of any pitched battle".

wikipedia

Any military exercise - at least done by NATO-forces - differs between "battlefield" and "targets". How often did you take part in one or at in the planning of one?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The battlefield is wherever the fighting is.

A target is "where fighting is"?

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Any military exercise - at least done by NATO-forces - differs between "battlefield" and "targets".

How do they differ?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

A target is "where fighting is"?

Yes.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Any military exercise - at least done by NATO-forces - differs between "battlefield" and "targets".
How do they differ?

Try to get, for instance, the meaning of those words. (That's e.g. why both got different codes, since "codification is critical to mission success"

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
A target is "where fighting is"?
Yes.

Any source, like a manual, for that?
And why does NATO have a different approach as to be seen in the "Target Reporting Categories"?

It doesn't seem to have changed nowadays (at least according to the available sources) from those days in the Cold War when I did tactical and close target reconnaissance.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

This is just a return to old Soviet/Cold War era practices, and some of it was done by both sides.

I recall once intercepting a Soviet TU 95 (Bear) Recon. aircraft approaching our carrier at low altitude in the North Sea. I and my wingman joined up on the Bear -- he quickly descended to about 500 ft. altitude and made repeated sharp turns into us to shake us off. We moved in closer to more easily match his turns ( he was approaching our ship) and I had a close view of the tail gunner in his glass enclosure. He, to my surprise. gave me the finger - I didn't know the gesture was that universal. We hung in there as the Bear approached our ship and before long the tail gunner held up a large photo, which looked vaguely like a pinup : my back seat RIO was taking photos of the scene. Later when we developed our photos we found he was holding up a Playboy bunny. Again I realized the world was smaller than I had thought.

1 Reply

I note that 9ralloy has not answered Walter's question about personal participation. It is my experience that the sabre-rattling chickenhawks frequently have not served in the military, and I suspect don't intend to ever go in harm's way.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

This is just a return to old Soviet/Cold War era practices, and some of it was done by both sides.

I've only "met" (= taken photos) the Tu-142 in the Baltic.
But I could add a couple of similar stories like yours, though not from an airdale's, four-stripes-coxswain's view Wink

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Try to get, for instance, the meaning of those words. (That's e.g. why both got different codes, since "codification is critical to mission success"

So in other words, no real difference.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Any source, like a manual, for that?

5. a ship, building, site, etc. that is the object of a military attack
http://www.yourdictionary.com/target

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And why does NATO have a different approach as to be seen in the "Target Reporting Categories"?

I doubt that they have a different approach.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I note that 9ralloy has not answered Walter's question about personal participation.

It was a desperate attempt to distract from the facts. And none of anyone's business in any case.

Setanta wrote:

It is my experience that the sabre-rattling chickenhawks frequently have not served in the military, and I suspect don't intend to ever go in harm's way.

The notion that people should only be allowed to participate in important societal decisions if they have a military background reeks of fascism.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

It was a desperate attempt to distract from the facts.

Not at all desperate but exactly trying to get better facts than I know only from the 70's and 80's by personal experience and from later just by reading.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

This from the crypto-fascist who wants to ban the Democratic Party. In fact, Walter's question was about participation in NATO planning and operations. No competent military takes a public poll about how to conduct operations.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

But I could add a couple of similar stories like yours, though not from an airdale's, four-stripes-coxswain's view

Apparently you had a couple of friends in the U.S. Navy. "Airdale" was a term envious surface officers used in describing us. We pretended to ignore them, as I will pretend to ignore your effort. Laughing

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Any source, like a manual, for that?
5. a ship, building, site, etc. that is the object of a military attack
http://www.yourdictionary.com/target

"yourdictionary" is certainly a source nearly as good as any official manual

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
And why does NATO have a different approach as to be seen in the "Target Reporting Categories"?
I doubt that they have a different approach.

Then I don't understand your above responses.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

This from the crypto-fascist who wants to ban the Democratic Party.

I disagree with fascism. It seems a poor way to run society.

The Democratic Party should be banned because they are a scourge against innocent people.

1 Reply

So we are back to the Cold War again?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know