Russian SU 24 buzzes US Navy ship; gets as close as 30 ft from it - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;50132944]People like you are why we never learn anything from our history.[/QUOTE] No? He's comparing that raw numbers won WWII, and thus could win today too. The playing field has changed significantly since then. Acting like everything is WWII is why we never learn anything from history. The idea of prolonged, massive waves of mobilized infantry and vehicles working on fronts stretching hundreds if not thousands of kilometers is moot in today's world of precision...well, everything. Sheer numbers don't give one the upper hand no-holds barred. Also, there were so many factors that involved the success of the Axis (and then Allied) armies during the second world war that can't be listed because this post would turn into a research paper. Numbers mean something, but we cannot rely on them as a whole. The term "Always prepared for the last war" rings true time and time again.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;50132356]woooooow this is what happens when you use facepunch to develop your worldview, folks how sheltered does one have to be to actually believe this shit[/QUOTE] well answer me this: if I hopped over your fence and stole some of your garbage in the yard, would you not use the opportunity to shoot me dead?

[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50130209]This post embodies such a drastic and hilarious misunderstanding of the situation i dont even know where to begin[/QUOTE] Well correct me then instead of just being an ass.

John Kerry has weighed into the raging Facepunch debate [quote]The US military would have been within its rights to shoot down Russian aircraft that flew close to one of its warships in the Baltic Sea, Secretary of State John Kerry says. Two Russian jets flew within metres of the ship on Monday, US officials said. Russia's defence ministry said the Su-24 fighter jets "turned away in observance of all safety measures" after observing the USS Donald Cook. Mr Kerry criticised the gesture and said contact had been made with Moscow. "We condemn this kind of behaviour," he told the Miami Herald and CNN Espanol in a joint interview. "It is reckless. It is provocative. It is dangerous. And under the rules of engagement, that could have been a shoot-down." He added that the US "is not going to be intimidated on the high seas" and that a message had been conveyed to Russia over the danger of such a gesture.[/quote] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36050689[/url]

[QUOTE=Melnek;50130560]the problem lies with the conflict itself while your military is the most funded (any source that tries to put into numbers the might of a country in order to make some sort of "power ranking" bullshit list is downright retarded and easily dismiss-able), if you pit china or russia in an all out conflict literally nobody wins. both countries are adequately equipped to wage conventional war for years. china in particular. your technological edge is not that ground breaking nor is it impervious to all damage. this is why these sort of discussions boil down to MY COUNTRY COULD BEAT UP YOUR COUNTRY, often by posting wikipedia articles and comparing statistics and numbers for no other reason other than stroking nationalistic dicks.[/QUOTE] Technological edge not that ground breaking? While I don't want to devolve into the same argument you've mentioned I'd like to point out that with just the Navy, the United States has more Aircraft Carriers (CVN'S and amphibs) than the rest of the world combined, we also have 14 ohio class SSBN'S which is the largest fleet of ballistic missile subs in the world, the next biggest country is Russia with a grand total of 3. Our force projection power, shielding, and strike capabilities are boundless. With one Ohio class Submarine we could decimate most countries. So well funded yes? [I]Only well funded[/i]? No. Not even counting the strength of the rest of our forces we indisputably have the mightiest and best trained forces in the world. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] Yes I think my country's military is sick af though, it comes with the job.

[QUOTE=Wickerman123;50130669]Yeah because they're all inhuman psychopaths.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Wickerman123;50128664]I get the impression that American's value themselves over others (not saying other nations don't) to the extent they're quite open to killing people for the smallest of disrespectful actions.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;50133152]well answer me this: if I hopped over your fence and stole some of your garbage in the yard, would you not use the opportunity to shoot me dead?[/QUOTE] No because the average joe here in the states isn't a fucking psychopath Jesus fucking Christ guys I can't even tell at this point if some of you are serious or not [video=youtube;t-rQTrj6JmM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-rQTrj6JmM[/video]

You straight up took my comment out of context there, I was talking about the Israeli military there, not the American public.

[QUOTE=Wickerman123;50134060]You straight up took my comment out of context there, I was talking about the Israeli military there, not the American public.[/QUOTE] I don't care if were talking about Russia's or even North Korea's Army You're fucking generalizing hundreds of thousands for serving in a branch of their nations military, most of which don't even have a choice

What is it with you Americans arguing without actually putting forward an argument? All you do is spout one liners, piss about, make fun of Europeans and brag instead of actually adding to the discussion, god even your political leaders do it, yet you wonder why people from other countries don't take you seriously. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;50133429]John Kerry has weighed into the raging Facepunch debate [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36050689[/url][/QUOTE] They completely failed to mention the aircraft were unarmed. BBC journalists writing utter shite as usual.

[QUOTE=Wickerman123;50134079]What is it with you Americans arguing without actually putting forward an argument? All you do is spout one liners, piss about, make fun of Europeans and brag instead of actually adding to the discussion, god even your political leaders do it, yet you wonder why people from other countries don't take you seriously. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] They completely failed to mention the aircraft were unarmed. BBC journalists writing utter shite as usual.[/QUOTE] Could it be that we aren't taking you seriously because you asserted that Americans draw iron and murder each other over the "slightest disrespect" like we're in some kind of wild west dystopia No I guess it's because all Americans are ignorant colonists and don't understand your superior intellect

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50134146]Could it be that we aren't taking you seriously because you asserted that Americans draw iron and murder each other over the "slightest disrespect" like we're in some kind of wild west dystopia No I guess it's because all Americans are ignorant colonists and don't understand your superior intellect[/QUOTE] You're doing it again. Also, not once have I claimed to have superior intellect. Sure I've made some generalisations about the American public but I stand by them, I have statistics to justify my views. I stand by observation that your cultural acceptance of firearms has been a detriment to your country and has only facilitated crime, accidental death and a damaged psychi - the latter leading to you complaining that a [B]qualified[/B] military commander [B]didn't[/B] kill an unarmed pilot instead of praising him for his resilience and professionalism in handling the situation. You rely too much on your leaders, your media. You don't question it enough, you let racist, big headed bigots who have no regard for anyone but themselves run for President actually gain traction. Instead of going "Yeah he sympathises with these irrational fears of ours, let's support him!" you should be questioning why you have these fears in the first place, why your first instinct in a threatening situation is to blindly open fire without assessing the situation first.

[QUOTE=Wickerman123;50134199]You're doing it again. Also, not once have I claimed to have superior intellect. Sure I've made some generalisations about the American public but I stand by them, I have statistics to justify my views. I stand by observation that your cultural acceptance of firearms has been a detriment to your country and has only facilitated crime, accidental death and a damaged psychi - the latter leading to you complaining that a [B]qualified[/B] military commander [B]didn't[/B] kill an unarmed pilot instead of praising him for his resilience and professionalism in handling the situation. You rely too much on your leaders, your media. You don't question it enough, you let racist, big headed bigots who have no regard for anyone but themselves run for President actually gain traction. Instead of going "Yeah he sympathises with these irrational fears of ours, let's support him!" you should be questioning why you have these fears in the first place, why your first instinct in a threatening situation is to blindly open fire without assessing the situation first.[/QUOTE] I didn't do that at all. I'm glad nobody died. Shooting the plane down would cause unnecessary casualties, nevermind be a wildly irresponsible act in a political frame. I support Sanders for president. Who do you think you're talking to? Do you think just because I own guns I'm voting Trump and lamenting a lack of unnecessary world wars?

It's 3:30am so sorry if I'm not being concise. I wasn't directly addressing you other than in the first sentence, to which I was referring to the quips. Outside of that I was generalising the majority.

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;50132675]If a Russian warship was off the coast of Florida you can bet your ass some fighters are gonna check it out. Russia was well within their right to fly wherever the fuck they want in international waters and shooting at the jet would have been quite literally one of the dumbest decisions ever made. [editline]14th April 2016[/editline] Imagine a world where a 30 ft flyby by an SU 24 constitutes a simulated attack run. They were showing off, if it wanted to pretend to attack it would have locked on with an anti-ship missile at 10km away. Which they didn't have equipped btw.[/QUOTE] The military was the one who identified the passes as simulated attack runs. The earlier of the 11 passes were apparently more normal bomb runs. You can even see it in the video. Again though, the aircraft was only identified to be unarmed when it passed over the ship. If they actually acquired a lock, the ship would have shot them down instantly. Yes, the US would go keep an eye on ships near their territory. I don't fault anyone for scrambling fighters to keep a watchful eye, but you can maintain distance and watch. If Russia was doing super low level training with Cuba, like landing helicopters on a destroyer, I'd have zero issues with Russian warships nearby. Frankly I'd love to see them dock at Florida. It has nothing to do with their nationality and everything to do with the fact that fucking with a warship like that is extremely dangerous. Coming within two plane widths of a warship is stupidly dangerous.

[QUOTE=Wickerman123;50130669]When I said that I wasn't referring to this specific situations. I was referring to such situations where please have shot and killed unarmed people for no reason and it doesn't phase them. Most of these situations are definitely not [B]reasonable fears.[/B] This situation definitely is a reasonable fear but I see that as no justification to shoot them down. What they did was provocative, sure, everyone knows the Russians are like that. However American's can't talk about shooting people down because they're scared when they're the most invasive and provocative Nation out there. The ship was in the Baltic sea for christ's sake, some nations could see that as threatening. Shooting down those pilots will never be a justifiable action, no matter what you say. The commander made the right decision. He weighed up the situation, saw that they were not armed and held fire. He was within his right to warn them with a lock on but shooting down an unarmed craft is just as unjustifiable as shooting an unarmed schizophrenic man. If the craft had been carry armaments this would be a completely different story so don't put yourself above me with the "Europeans are scared of fights so even self defence is seen as bloodthirsty" bullshit when there was no self defence to be carried out in that situation.[/QUOTE] The destroyer didn't know the planes were unarmed until the planes had already done the attack runs. It would have ben far too late. This was already explained but you ignored it apparently. [editline]14th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;50132212]So in Finland, we should enact laws to make gun ownership much less restricted? And then make other changes in the law so that we can defend ourselves and property using our guns? (Or alternatively just create a legal nightmare where people have bunch of shiny custom guns, but not much legal room to use them for.. their intended purpose?(??) Oh and guess who you would piss off the most? All the police in the entire country probably.[/QUOTE] What the hell? Where did I mention guns? Strawmanning on this scale should be bannable by now.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50134954]The destroyer didn't know the planes were unarmed until the planes had already done the attack runs. It would have ben far too late. This was already explained but you ignored it apparently. [editline]14th April 2016[/editline] What the hell? Where did I mention guns? Strawmanning on this scale should be bannable by now.[/QUOTE] You did mention self defense situations in pretty general without specifying. How to Europeans almost [I]any[/I] self defense situation is seen as barbaric or smth. And how this does not bode well for the future of the continent. But sure, the subject is the destroyer pilot / man-in-command who chose not to open fire and kill a russian jet, had like +10 opportunities too right as it kept coming back? Perhaps sending some lock-on signals to the plane would have been good, because it is a fire drill situation of sorts, initiated by an unarmed Russian jet. And in any case, it was the commander's decision, which some of y'all don't seem to respect. You command a boat first, then maybe you shoot it down.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50135970]You did mention self defense situations in pretty general without specifying. How to Europeans almost [I]any[/I] self defense situation is seen as barbaric or smth. And how this does not bode well for the future of the continent. But sure, the subject is the destroyer pilot / man-in-command who chose not to open fire and kill a russian jet, had like +10 opportunities too right as it kept coming back. Perhaps sending some lock-on signals to the plane would have been good, because it is a fire drill situation of sorts, initiated by an unarmed Russian jet. And in any case, it was the commander's decision, which some of y'all don't seem to respect. You command a boat, maybe you shoot it down.[/QUOTE] I don't know where people are getting the idea that they didn't lock onto the aircraft. I doubt it was even a person who did it. The Aegis defense system would likely have identified and acquired a radar lock on a jet with no friendly transponder approaching the ship on an attack run. Responding to threats like that is kind of the point of the system. At that range the Fencers probably wouldn't even bother with launching countermeasures. They were close enough for the 5 inch gun (unlikely) or the CIWS to engage, which countermeasures aren't going to do a lot against.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50135988]I don't know where people are getting the idea that they didn't lock onto the aircraft. I doubt it was even a person who did it. The Aegis defense system would likely have identified and acquired a radar lock on a jet with no friendly transponder approaching the ship on an attack run. Responding to threats like that is kind of the point of the system. At that range the Fencers probably wouldn't even bother with launching countermeasures. They were close enough for the 5 inch gun or the CIWS to engage, which countermeasures aren't going to do a lot against.[/QUOTE] It was a person decision not to shoot it down still. Like, who should I lean to here? The commander's decision, or people suggesting they should have immediately "put some phalanx rounds in the face, yeah I literally jerk off to guns."

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50136001]It was a person decision not to shoot it down still.[/quote] Absolutely, it is just weird that people keep suggesting that no lock was acquired. The system would have probably spiked him pretty early on. [quote]Like, who should I lean to here? The commander's decision, or people suggesting they should have immediately "put some phalanx rounds in the face, yeah I literally jerk off to guns."[/QUOTE] Buzzing a ship with a ground attack jet is stupidly dangerous. Absolutely nothing gives them the right to put those guys at risk. This wasn't intelligence gathering or anything useful. It was pure provocation. The provocation even continues to escalate. What happens when it goes wrong and there is a burning hulk and 200 dead sailors in the water? In related news, this is a discussion. At no time have I personally attacked you or anyone else. Don't do it again.

[QUOTE=GunFox;50136022]Absolutely, it is just weird that people keep suggesting that no lock was acquired. The system would have probably spiked him pretty early on. Buzzing a ship with a ground attack jet is stupidly dangerous. Absolutely nothing gives them the right to put those guys at risk. This wasn't intelligence gathering or anything useful. It was pure provocation. The provocation even continues to escalate. What happens when it goes wrong and there is a burning hulk and 200 dead sailors in the water? In related news, this is a discussion. At no time have I personally attacked you or anyone else. Don't do it again.[/QUOTE] Yep, it was stupidly dangerous, crashing into the ship would have been absolutely disastrous. Oh, Russians.. Still shooting them would have also been stupid, and imho if they did they should have been sank in retaliation. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] And nobody wants that. And no, no personal attacking, but some people sure seemed hell-bent on lighting up the Russian.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50136209]Yep, it was stupidly dangerous, crashing into the ship would have been absolutely disastrous. Oh, Russians.. Still shooting them would have also been stupid, and imho if they did they should have been sank in retaliation. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] And nobody wants that. And no, no personal attacking, but some people sure seemed hell-bent on lighting up the Russian.[/QUOTE] Massive props to the commander staying cool but how is it dumb to protect your own ship and crew? The pilot had no business there and it would be the fault of whoever gave him that order EVEN if they shot him down. You don't fly like an idiot towards a military ship. Are you giving them a free pass because they're "Oh silly Russians~"?

[QUOTE=GunFox;50136022]Absolutely, it is just weird that people keep suggesting that no lock was acquired. The system would have probably spiked him pretty early on. Buzzing a ship with a ground attack jet is stupidly dangerous. Absolutely nothing gives them the right to put those guys at risk. This wasn't intelligence gathering or anything useful. It was pure provocation. The provocation even continues to escalate. What happens when it goes wrong and there is a burning hulk and 200 dead sailors in the water? In related news, this is a discussion. At no time have I personally attacked you or anyone else. Don't do it again.[/QUOTE] You argument still doesn't sway me. The US are one of the most provocative nations in the world and often do it to other nations for no gain. Calling out the Russian pilots for being provocative is hypocritical. It's not uncommon for militaries to test eachother's reflexes. Guaranteed it would be a totally different story from you Americans had it been a US pilot buzzing a Russian ship and getting shot down. No one is denying the stupidity of the what the pilots did. If something did go wrong and the pilot crashed, then yeah, it's a shit situation that would really increase tension but the last thing anyone wants in the world right now is to go to war so why does anyone think that shooting the pilots would be a good idea? Sure you have less life lost if something had gone wrong but you inch closer to starting a war in the process. From my point of view, no American has the right to complain about another Nation's military given the shit that the their own military has done. Same goes for the British forces. You American's think your fucking untouchable and that you can do whatever the fuck you want. [editline]15th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ghost656;50136295]Massive props to the commander staying cool but how is it dumb to protect your own ship and crew? The pilot had no business there and it would be the fault of whoever gave him that order EVEN if they shot him down. You don't fly like an idiot towards a military ship. Are you giving them a free pass because they're "Oh silly Russians~"?[/QUOTE] Where the fuck are you getting that form? Did you even read what he said? Shooting the pilot's down would have caused a complete and utter shitstorm and probably would have ended up with the Russian's sinking the ship anyway. There was no "free pass." You pulled that one out your ass.

stop doing this condescending "you americans" bullshit it's not 3:30 AM for you anymore you have no excuse to act like an asshole like "you americans all generalize us europeans" is actually a real thought that came out of your head stop and think about that one for a second

[QUOTE=Ghost656;50136295]Massive props to the commander staying cool but how is it dumb to protect your own ship and crew? The pilot had no business there and it would be the fault of whoever gave him that order EVEN if they shot him down. You don't fly like an idiot towards a military ship. [I]Are you giving them a free pass because they're "Oh silly Russians~"?[/I][/QUOTE] No, but what can you do? It's provocation. Like trying to start a fight without attacking anyone, you wouldn't want to give them that.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50136572]stop doing this condescending "you americans" bullshit it's not 3:30 AM for you anymore you have no excuse to act like an asshole like "you americans all generalize us europeans" is actually a real thought that came out of your head stop and think about that one for a second[/QUOTE] I never used that as an excuse for being an asshole, I used it as an excuse for not being concise. I'm generalising so much because the majority of American's in this thread hold the same view. Also: [QUOTE=Grenadiac;50132401]It's pretty common among Europeans from my experience as a gun owner, particularly Brits. They won't let you prove them wrong, either.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Wickerman123;50136614]I never used that as an excuse for being an asshole, I used it as an excuse for not being concise. I'm generalising so much because the majority of American's in this thread hold the same view. Also:[/QUOTE] "many europeans arrogantly cling to a belief that americans murder each other for sneezing in theaters" != "all europeans arrogantly cling to a belief that americans murder each other for sneezing in theaters" get your head out of your ass, if you didn't believe that you wouldn't have said it

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;50136584]No, but what can you do? It's provocation. Like trying to start a fight without attacking anyone, you wouldn't want to give them that.[/QUOTE] I'm going to add to this and use the analogy of being in a bar. Someone tries to start a fight with you amongst all you friends and the staff are watching. Do you: A - kick the everloving shit out of him. B - Ignore him, not fight, and get on with your night. /analogy If you're the sort of person to choose A then you haven or right to be making criticisms about a military commanders decision and you definitely shouldn't be given access to firearms.

if someone's physically harassing me i'm while i'm enjoying a drink with my friends i'm gonna send em on, you can't ignore that nobody's going to the hospital but he'll be leaving the joint with a few bruises that's called sticking up for yourself bad analogy i own firearms and have been in physical altercations while having access to a firearm without even considering using it, i think you need to come to the US and learn a thing or two about americans before spouting off

No, my analogy worked. It demonstrates how drastically we disagree with situation handling.

i sincerely doubt if someone's pushing you around you're just gonna hunch over and try to pretend you're enjoying your drink. pushing back at someone taking a swipe at you isn't even remotely comparable to a neutral warship shooting down an unarmed aircraft buzzing them - one makes sense and is a reasonable use of force, the other is an idiotic over-reaction that costs at least one person their life and creates a really sticky international incident