Malaysian Air flight shot down over Ukraine with 295 aboard.

[Lusche]

. Unlike other German aircraft that were designed clandestinely for military purposes the Fw 200 is not one of them. The Fw 200 was designed specifically as a transatlantic airliner.

In fact, this conversion was very troublesome as the FW 200, being a pure civilian design only, lacked the structural strength originally required for such a military role. A typical stopgap measure.

[GScholz]

And for all those legal targets, what is the proportion of military personal who have been killed in transit to the battlefield compared to civilians who have been killed by these weapons systems who were not?

Depends on how far back you want to go. DC-3 count? 

[cpxxx]

These Eastern European countries are still fighting wars started in 1570, like the Irish their culture is based on fighting the english

Hmm the British army maintain two Irish regiments to this day. It seems to me that the only Irish fighting at the moment are fighting FOR the English! On the other hand my next door neighbour is English. I'm off to fight him!

Gibberish Shida

That is why Scotland wants independance

And we have more Ultra right wing nationalist countries now in the EU

Poland,Latvia and Ukraine are raving Nationalists, when they cant get want from the EU they will start getting moody

This is the future Shida no amount of tree hugging will stop it, at least the colonials can go down to RED jacket and get a insurance policy

I agree with you on this though. The world is going backwards not forward. There is an alarming drift to the right in Europe and the rest of the world. Russia is no longer a Communist state but a Fascist state led by a virtual dictator.

Another European war is not as unthinkable as it used to be!

[FLOOB]

During time of war aeroflot was to fall under military command. The soviets had a thing, I'm not sure what to call it, a faring I guess, that would be inserted through the open doors that would better facilitate paratroopers jumping out. That I know of, nato countries never experimented with dropping conventional troops from commercial transport jets. The fact that DB cooper had that skill set back in the 70's indicates that he belonged too a very particular demographic.

[Serenity]

Doesn't the Il-76 have a ramp even the commercial version? I don't think you can actually open the doors of a commercial airliner with the motors running as they are plug doors and rely on pressure difference to keep them closed. Even if you modified one so it could as I suggested before a commercial airliner flying low and slow when not approaching an airport is immediately suspicious so I fail to see the advantage.

The P-8 Poseidon was modified by a division of Boeing itself and the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 was probably designed right from its early stages with provision for military 'conversion' as a workaround for the Treaty of Versailles and was again converted by an aircraft company, not some A Team with hacksaws and a MIG welder.


Respectfully Serenity this is the sort of unthinking idiotic sound bite I'd expect to hear from some moron trying to protect his right to own a 50 calibre machine gun on his farm. To what other purpose can a SAM or a Colt 45 be applied? Almost anything can be employed as a weapon and yet presently the most popularly supported option seems to be to get an actual weapon.


Has the idolatry of power and weapons reached such a point that they are in some way sacred from the incorporation of a mechanism to make them ineffective against targets they were never intended to destroy? What about anti-personal mines? What if they had a secured coded short-range signal where you could set them off in situ after the conflict is over? Is that unacceptable because of the infinitesimal chance the enemy could crack or intercept the codes and neutralize them before that point? Do you object to such an idea as (former?) military personnel?

What about the Geneva Convention and Hors de combat? Don't these rules / laws pertain to the ethics of confining casualties to combatants? In the case of flight mh 17 an indiscriminating fire and forget weapon is thoughtlessly launched against a totally civilian target, an airliner - not incidental casualties, not an overspill from a legitimate target - and destroys it and you are telling me with conviction that it's unfortunate but more important that the weapon destroys whatever it is fired at? You can't even discuss such possibilities without being shouted down?


No I'm sorry I disagree with this to the very core. In all other domains of human problem solving BOTH approaches are being taken in harmony.

Respectfully (Okay, let's be honesty, I've lost a significant chunk of respect for you with THAT particular comment) the .45 Colt currently sitting on my hip has MANY possible jobs, from protecting my family, to hunting and putting food on the table.

On the subject of the P-8, the point is, how would you POSITIVELY identify a P-8 vice a 737? Hell, you couldn't find the weapons bay on it and doubted it was a military attack aircraft! Thus, so long as we send in P-8s, SAMs won't touch us.

And yes, a weapon MUST be effective, if it's going to be used. If I'm about to head into combat, being the moral and ethical person that I am, and I am offered two guns, one which is 'smart' and will NOT shoot when pointed at a person NOT holding a rifle (So civilians are safe, but so are suicide bombers) and one old fashioned dumb gun, you bet your rear end, I'm taking that old fashioned gun every single time without hesitation. Your smart technology is useless if it's left at home because it might render the weapon ineffective.

[zack1234]

Hmm the British army maintain two Irish regiments to this day. It seems to me that the only Irish fighting at the moment are fighting FOR the English! On the other hand my next door neighbour is English. I'm off to fight him!


I agree with you on this though. The world is going backwards not forward. There is an alarming drift to the right in Europe and the rest of the world. Russia is no longer a Communist state but a Fascist state led by a virtual dictator.

Another European war is not as unthinkable as it used to be!

I could beat you in a fight, well my butler could

[FLOOB]

Zack runs afoul of an irishman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7uOrSvLlSg

[cpxxx]

I could beat you in a fight, well my butler could

Yes indeed my dear boy but your Butler is probably Irish,  old chap.

[Scherf]

"WHAAAAT?

Jenkins an Irishman?

It's a outrage!!!"

[nrshida]

Respectfully (Okay, let's be honesty, I've lost a significant chunk of respect for you with THAT particular comment) the .45 Colt currently sitting on my hip has MANY possible jobs, from protecting my family, to hunting and putting food on the table.

'Significant chunk'? Was there so much in the first instance? What kind of food do you gather for your family with a Colt 45?

On the subject of the P-8, the point is, how would you POSITIVELY identify a P-8 vice a 737? Hell, you couldn't find the weapons bay on it and doubted it was a military attack aircraft! Thus, so long as we send in P-8s, SAMs won't touch us.

Because one has a legitimate C.A.A. registration and the other doesn't. If my suggestion is so outrageous how come military aircraft already use a similar system without problems?

And yes, a weapon MUST be effective, if it's going to be used. If I'm about to head into combat, being the moral and ethical person that I am, and I am offered two guns, one which is 'smart' and will NOT shoot when pointed at a person NOT holding a rifle (So civilians are safe, but so are suicide bombers) and one old fashioned dumb gun, you bet your rear end, I'm taking that old fashioned gun every single time without hesitation. Your smart technology is useless if it's left at home because it might render the weapon ineffective.

Suicide bombers aren't civilians. I don't believe my proposal makes SAMs ineffective in combat. So your consistent objection boils down to not trusting the technology to fulfill its purpose because of the marginal cases which would render you, or the weapon user unarmed? Isn't that a rather selective distrust of technology?

If you don't want to discuss land mines for some reason what about a police pistol which would only fire in the hands of the officer it is paired to. Are you comfortable with that notion?

[Serenity]

'Significant chunk'? Was there so much in the first instance? What kind of food do you gather for your family with a Colt 45?


Because one has a legitimate C.A.A. registration and the other doesn't. If my suggestion is so outrageous how come military aircraft already use a similar system without problems?


Suicide bombers aren't civilians. I don't believe my proposal makes SAMs ineffective in combat. So your consistent objection boils down to not trusting the technology to fulfill its purpose because of the marginal cases which would render you, or the weapon user unarmed? Isn't that a rather selective distrust of technology?

If you don't want to discuss land mines for some reason what about a police pistol which would only fire in the hands of the officer it is paired to. Are you comfortable with that notion?

I make a very comfortable living, so I don't HAVE to put food on the table with any of my firearms, but I have the capability should the need arise, however my life experience has shown me I am MUCH more likely to protect my family with it than feed them. And yes, there was a good amount of respect, I thought we were having a very well-educated debate until that line.

With regards to the C.A.A. registration, what prevents a government from procuring a fraudulent C.A.A. registration for an aircraft similar to the P-8? As long as we have a SAM programmed not to engage targets with specific characteristics, our enemy WILL try to recreate those characteristics. Like jamming to radar, except that when you're talking about the ability of the weapon to actually engage, it gets even more dangerous. At the end of the day, I do NOT trust a weapon to think for me. I do not trust landmines that can be remotely switched off after the conflict, because I will bet my left testicle that there will be an enemy dedicating their lives to cracking that code and making those landmines useless. It's a bit better than a SAM that will not target a specific type of plane, I agree, but I still see the danger. Land-mines being a passive weapon that is employed blindly vs a SAM actively targeting an enemy. And no, I will NOT support a pistol paired to an individual officer's hand. The margin for error there is astronomical. Is it finger printed? If so, what if his hands are too dirty? Doesn't grab it the same way? Is it paired to his heart rythms? Then you have stress... how would you RELIABLY single out a specific category of shooter or target without creating a GIANT blind spot in the system?

[zack1234]

"WHAAAAT?

Jenkins an Irishman?

It's a outrage!!!"

Yes its an outrage!

Jenkins is Ungandan

[Mister Fork]

I have served on UN duty. It's the most impotent organisation on the planet

Fug yeah. Do did I - did 4 months in Iraq with UNIIMOG. The UN allowed the Iraqi military to force us to 'lock up' our weapons while on patrol after the northern 'incident' (don't ask, long story).

The UN is the most toothless and pointless organization that is in need of an enema.  No veto powers and everyone votes.  Unfortunately the UN can do little for the issue in Ukraine as long as Russia has veto power.

[GScholz]

Actually there is a very good reason for the veto powers; to make sure than any resolution in the UN Security Council (that's the only council where they have vetoes btw.) is at least agreeable to all the major (nuclear) powers. The point of the UN is to prevent war, not create more wars, and certainly not to tick off a nuclear power.

[nrshida]

And yes, there was a good amount of respect, I thought we were having a very well-educated debate until that line.

Then I apologize. I'm probably getting institutionalized with the AH forum and feel discussion is usually the pre-fight to derision and insulting dismissal. In this thread there has been selective responses which degrades the discussion. I felt you were insulting my intelligence.

I make a very comfortable living, so I don't HAVE to put food on the table with any of my firearms, but I have the capability should the need arise, however my life experience has shown me I am MUCH more likely to protect my family with it than feed them.

I have a 250 year old wakizashi which I can draw cut and return to its case very quickly and my life experience has shown me I'm much more likely to sell it to feed my family than to use it to protect them  

With regards to the C.A.A. registration, what prevents a government from procuring a fraudulent C.A.A. registration for an aircraft similar to the P-8? As long as we have a SAM programmed not to engage targets with specific characteristics, our enemy WILL try to recreate those characteristics. Like jamming to radar, except that when you're talking about the ability of the weapon to actually engage, it gets even more dangerous. At the end of the day, I do NOT trust a weapon to think for me. I do not trust landmines that can be remotely switched off after the conflict, because I will bet my left testicle that there will be an enemy dedicating their lives to cracking that code and making those landmines useless. It's a bit better than a SAM that will not target a specific type of plane, I agree, but I still see the danger. Land-mines being a passive weapon that is employed blindly vs a SAM actively targeting an enemy. And no, I will NOT support a pistol paired to an individual officer's hand. The margin for error there is astronomical. Is it finger printed? If so, what if his hands are too dirty? Doesn't grab it the same way? Is it paired to his heart rythms? Then you have stress... how would you RELIABLY single out a specific category of shooter or target without creating a GIANT blind spot in the system?

I do have ideas regarding false C.A.A. registration and the police firearm but I think the discussion is reaching its useful end as we approach ideological differences so I might just leave it there.

This is the second airliner shot down in living memory by a SAM with a devastatingly unnecessary loss of life. This time most of the dead were from the country I presently live in and the national grief and acceptance is tangible. Especially to think of the eighty children killed I find this act abhorrently objectionable. How dare these people do this to innocents. I just thought it obvious that an innovative IFF system for civilian aircraft would have prevented this.


A friend of mine recently shared an interesting piece of text with me from an unexpected place:

Narrated By Abdur Rahman bin Abi Laila. Sahl bin Hunaif and Qais bin Sad were sitting in the city of Al-Qadisiya. A funeral procession passed in front of them and they stood up. They were told that funeral procession was of one of the inhabitants of the land i.e. of a non-believer, under the protection of Muslims. They said, "A funeral procession passed in front of the Prophet and he stood up. When he was told that it was the coffin of a Jew, he said, "Was he not a human being (a living soul)?"