Malaysia Airlines flight crashes in Ukraine

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by lanny9

No you don't "threaten" militarily against Russia but make it be known that this will not be tolerated by the world community. The US has continued to threaten Russia with more sanctions, so I don't see it any different than what they have done so far in regard to the sanctions. Europe just this week threatened more sanctions.

The thing is what we know about this whole situation is very little compared to what the intelligence community knows. They know full well that these heavy artilleries are coming from Russia, they know full well that those were Russian troops in Crimea who had simply taken off the Russian flag on their uniforms. Putin knows full well what he is doing here, it is all part of his plan.

So you don't threaten, but you say if you did it we will get you? Right.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So you don't threaten, but you say if you did it we will get you? Right.

It's more of a vow than a threat.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Sorry, I'm done now. That last post of his was a gem.

Me too

[Ducay]

Anyone else catch the Ukrainian Foreign minister's press conference; did he not just implicate a Russian agency in phone calls surrounding the attack?

[Thor]

lol thats a relief.

19:28: Flight recorders have been found at the crash site, Konstantin Knyrik, a spokesman for the pro-Russian rebels, has told Interfax news agency. Earlier reports quoted rebels as saying they intended to send the flight recorders to Moscow for checking.

[Table 5]

lanny9 is the reason why it takes two people turn the keys before they launch the nukes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

CaptainCrunch, if it comes out that this was indeed no accident and NATO refuses to do more than stack troops along borders, what do you think the odds are that the US acts unilaterally on this situation, with more than just sanctions? I can't imagine the death of 25 odd Americans will be taken lightly, especially if the airliner was specifically targeted. I know it's early to say one way or another, but does anyone really want to poke the bear so to speak? However if this was deliberate, there's no way other nation states sit still on this is there?

the U.S. going in unilaterally? I'd say 0. First of all this isn't the American Military of the 80's and 90's with a full on force in Europe. For the most part the American's have little in the way of offensive capability, they have a couple of I think medium Stryker Brigades, some infantry training cadres and some air bases but not a lot of offensive capability.

Just in the purest sense of the word, if the American's went in, they are facing a long supply line versus the Russians who have the equivalency of 2 armies on the Western Border including probably over 1000 tanks. The American's would have to shift the majority of their active air force into Europe to counter the Russian threat both from Aircraft and from anti air platforms.

It would take a long time to build up the necessary strategic stock piles to fight what would be a longer war.

The American military of the late 80's and early 90's would have won, I don't think that the American Military of the mid 2010's could build up in time and under fire and win.

Plus what would be the objective? To punish Russian Separatists? Because you can bet that Putin would jump in on that right away, seize the Ukraine and then dig in and attempt to bleed the Americans.

Plus since the Ukraine and Russia are side to side so most of Russia's air and military bases would remain in Russia proper, would America be willing to strike on Russian soil or allow the Russians to attack with impunity.

And the minute that you do that Russia becomes justified in going after the American sea borne supply line and as much as Americans don't want to believe it Russia Submarine technology is now equal with their new subs and upgraded subs being slightly faster and quieter then their American equivalents.

Its a battle that America can't win now, and wouldn't have the stomach to fight. Look I don't like Obama I think he's terrible, but I think that his only prudent move is to probably accept eh casualties, accept that the UN won't be able to do anything, accept that NATO can't do anything and accept that America has lost their foot hold in Eastern Europe.

[burn_this_city]

I don't really see how the recorders will yield much, would the crew even know they were being fired on?

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I have to agree with this. Not the tax, but the tone and the general point. Why is the US expected to be the ones reacting to this? This is a human problem, shouldn't we all be concerned about it? People calling for Obama to take action (especially those from outside the US) and calling him soft for not doing so, is the rest of the world just more soft? Isn't this what the UN is supposed to be for? Putin doesn't want to follow UN rules? Boot them. I dont understand how this hasn't happened yet for a bunch of other countries, but the strength/resolve of the UN is a different discussion, it's fuction is supposed to be stopping things like this.

The reason Obama is apprehensive about military action is pretty obvious. They are just stretched too thin world wide and dont have the resources to back it up anymore, much less go further. Obama knows this. Random guy in Arkansas calling to nuke the commie pinko basterds doesn't understand that. And the US "news" stations are seemingly purposefully oblivious to it.

Everyone bitches and moans when the US plays world police, and now were all bitching and moaning when they don't. Do you want security or soveriegnty? It can't really be both in situations like this.

Totally agree....and you said it better than I could (and did).

[jschick88]

PzFeed Top News ‏@PzFeed 5m BREAKING NEWS. Ukraine govt says has recordings of calls b/t "terrorists" & Russian intel discussing "shoot-down" of Malaysian jet. CNN

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by driveway

Someone on CNN claiming they don't think it's a missile strike because there is no smoke trail leading to the ground.

edit: Person making this claim is David Soucie, CNN Security analyst, and FAA Accident Investigator and author of "Why Planes Crash."

Silly statement by a guy that should know better, some of the missiles launched from the Buk intentionally don't have a smoke trail to make it harder for the pilots to see the missile.

[Knut]

@Reuters: #BREAKING: Search efforts at scene of Malaysian airliner crash being hampered by "armed terrorists": Head of Ukrainian Emergency Situations

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I don't really see how the recorders will yield much, would the crew even know they were being fired on?

I would think at the very least it would probably help to rule out it being issue with the plane itself.

[JMN]

@lanny9 Yes, the chances that Russia is involved in one way or another is strong but the data needs to be collected. You can't go making accusations or implying things. Obama is being strategic about this. Needs the facts first before pointing any fingers.

Wanting Obama to say something about Russia is implying that they are heavily involved. What if the facts come back showing that they weren't? You know how bad that'd look on the USA?

[lanny9]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

So you don't threaten, but you say if you did it we will get you? Right.

Yes, to an extent, you can say if the evidence points to Russian involvement in supplying the rebels further sanctions will be undertaken. there is nothing wrong with that, Obama has repeatedly threatened further sanctions, don't know why so many are getting their panties in a knot over this type of talk, it happens all the time.

As far as crisis control or mannerisms, you do all that was pointed out but in the end you say that those responsible will be brought to justice, or otherwise. Obama has used this over Benghazi, he has used it this situation already with regard to supplying heavy arms to the rebels etc. nothing new but would further go to show that the US is not weak.

Now, the problem with the UN is that everything goes through the security council with Russia and China having permanent seats and voting against all actions that may be against them or their allies. This makes the UN useless as the "world cops" and is why the US and it's allies have had to take on that role independent of the UN. It is sad, I think things would be better with full council votes on any action with majority rules but that will never happen.

[nik-]

haha, watching MSNBC an "eyewitness" was on the phone with them. She asks what he saw and he says "It looks like a projectile, It was shot down by a gust of wind from Howard Stern's ass"

The reporter goes on, says "So you're saying it was shot down" ... obviously just clueless to what's going on.

The guy says "wow, you're a dumbass aren't you?"

Reporter "I'm sorry sir?"

and then they moved on ... not the sharpest knife in the drawer on either side.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Thor

Captain, it would seem IF Russia was supplying the rebels with the BUK system that it would be Russians operating it, would you agree, seems like a system you don't just hand off without someone who knows what they are doing operating it.

Which leads me to ask, how likely is it a Russian trained guy mistakes an Airliner and shoots it down??

/speculation end

I'll answer this the best I can.

this isn't like a hand fired SAM, or some of the older simple point and shoot independently targeted Sam vehicles.

The Buk is an air defense vehicle, its built to be a central point in keeping the skies clear over an advancing military. It uses radar and optical and infrared systems and it takes a while to train someone to use it and use it effectively.

One of two things could have happened. The Russians had the Separatists into Russia to train them, or we have "Advisers" running the vehicle.

Its not like a video game, usually what happens is the radar picks up the plane in sight, and you try to identify the target, usually by signature or transponder. Then you use the optical system to passively track the target, you don't want to use your targeting system on a military plane because they pick up that lock on radar. Once you identify the target optically then you usually lock on and fire.

There's a small chance that this could have been a tragic mistake, but if they used the optical system, and if they looked at the targets signature profile and transponder they would have known what it was..

And you can't take some farmer separatist and put him into this vehicle its a pretty technology heavy platform.

[lanny9]

Originally Posted by Table 5

lanny9 is the reason why it takes two people turn the keys before they launch the nukes.

My good god some of you guys are a riot! Again did I say start a war? Did I say nuke them, did I say send missiles into Russia. Stop putting words in my mouth! Just how old are you anyways?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Cap't, if my memory is correct, Ukraine was a leader in developing missile technology. Did they also have this BUK system?

They do have the Buk, they've modified it slightly but its the same system. That's why there is still the question of not only who fired it, but who's missiles were fired.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

When I said it was almost certainly an accident, I meant that the SAM operators likely didn't intend to shoot down a commercial airliner carrying nearly 300 civilians. Nobody has anything to gain from that. This tragedy was either caused by inexperienced rebels not knowing how to properly operate the BUK system or Russian or Ukrainian forces making a terrible mistake akin to the US Navy shooting down Iran Air 655.

The only reasons to deliberately shoot down a civilian aircraft would be to provoke the west or frame the other side. Neither make sense though for conspiracy buffs it seems the Ukraine government was the first to pin it on rebels and is the first to mention secret recordings about it....

Personally I'm not a conspiracy buff so I expect it was accidental / gross negligence. That's not to excuse whoever did it or who armed them though.