Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NullForceOmega]

Generally if we lose a piece of equipment that we really don't want someone else to have, we airstrike the hell out of it, as that isn't particularly difficult and is more of 'for sure' thing than remotely or conditionally activated self-destruct.

[miljan]

If I remember good, the drone did not crash, but was "hacked".

Anyway air striking in a foreign hostile territory would be highly problematic and dangerous. And I dont think this drones are that highly advanced or top secret for that type of risk.

[NullForceOmega]

Ehh, other than trying to hit China, Russia, or one of the NATO nations, there really isn't much anyone can do to stop the U.S. from delivering an explosive payload, cruise missiles are also a thing after all.  I mean, even those nations can't really "stop" us from bombing them, they just have the ability to retaliate adequately (we also don't have any interest in starting a war with any of them, I would assume that that would be the motivation behind not taking out the drone as well).  Hell, I seriously doubt that we could stop them for that matter, airspace control is really difficult.

That said, while the stealth design of the drone was fairly sensitive stuff, the drones are ultimately disposable, that's why we use them instead of piloted craft.

[Loud Whispers]

Ehh, other than trying to hit China, Russia, or one of the NATO nations, there really isn't much anyone can do to stop the U.S. from delivering an explosive payload, cruise missiles are also a thing after all.  I mean, even those nations can't really "stop" us from bombing them, they just have the ability to retaliate adequately (we also don't have any interest in starting a war with any of them, I would assume that that would be the motivation behind not taking out the drone as well).  Hell, I seriously doubt that we could stop them for that matter, airspace control is really difficult.

That said, while the stealth design of the drone was fairly sensitive stuff, the drones are ultimately disposable, that's why we use them instead of piloted craft.

Activation of infiltrated assets in the USA, asymmetrical naval warfare, cyberwarfare, financial warfare and just about any measure which would deter the US admiralty from risking any move which does not require overwhelming force

[NullForceOmega]

None of which actually physically prevent any power from carrying out such a strike (tho' I imagine that it would make it more difficult), they only make the results undesirable, which was my point.

[smjjames]

If I remember good, the drone did not crash, but was "hacked".

Anyway air striking in a foreign hostile territory would be highly problematic and dangerous. And I dont think this drones are that highly advanced or top secret for that type of risk.

Ehh, other than trying to hit China, Russia, or one of the NATO nations, there really isn't much anyone can do to stop the U.S. from delivering an explosive payload, cruise missiles are also a thing after all.  I mean, even those nations can't really "stop" us from bombing them, they just have the ability to retaliate adequately (we also don't have any interest in starting a war with any of them, I would assume that that would be the motivation behind not taking out the drone as well).  Hell, I seriously doubt that we could stop them for that matter, airspace control is really difficult.

That said, while the stealth design of the drone was fairly sensitive stuff, the drones are ultimately disposable, that's why we use them instead of piloted craft.

I forget the exact reason why they decided not to (if they ever gave a reason), but that may have been part of the reason, that it'd be risky. Especially if things were pretty tense with Iran (well, tenser than usual) at the time.

[NullForceOmega]

Yah, the situation was pretty unpleasant all-round, tensions were very high throughout the region.  We were still in Iraq (iirc), which made everyone leery of another conflict, and Obama just plain was not looking for another fight.

[Loud Whispers]

None of which actually physically prevent any power from carrying out such a strike (tho' I imagine that it would make it more difficult), they only make the results undesirable, which was my point.

But making it undesirable is the method of prevention

[NullForceOmega]

Making things undesirable has no physical effect on a B-2 bomber travelling undetected past your radar stations and delivering a warhead.  Making things undesirable is a method to de-incentivize attacks, not prevent them or stop them when they are underway.

One makes you not want to attack, the other prevents the attack from occurring.  I was speaking specifically about the latter when saying that I really don't believe that any world power can actually protect themselves, all we can do is make it uncomfortable and hope that whoever is on the other end won't decide to do it anyway (the vast majority won't).

[Zangi]

I believe it is called the MAD doctrine. 
If you hit me first, I know I probably can't stop it, but I will hit back, hard.

[Descan]

None of which actually physically prevent any power from carrying out such a strike (tho' I imagine that it would make it more difficult), they only make the results undesirable, which was my point.

But making it undesirable is the method of prevention

To the sufficiently paranoid ruler of a nation, that's not enough. ;P

[Strife26]

T72, likely driven by Russian PMCs got boinked by probably a Reaper drone last weekend. Small mercies for facing Russians is that they probably won't do the slide to war over a few little green men getting killed. Hopefully, maybe, probably?

[miljan]

Nahh, if there even where some russian troops on the ground (like Wagner), they were probably not under direct control of russia military. Hack russians where even warned that the air strikes would happen.

At the start of these -- of this attack, coalition aircraft, including F-22s and MQ-9s, were overhead providing protective overwatch, defensive counter-air, and ISR support -- as we have done daily throughout the defeat -- the fight to defeat ISIS.

We immediately contacted the Russian officials on the deconfliction telephone line to alert them to the unprovoked attack on a known SDF and coalition position.  After these calls, coalition officials approved strikes to destroy hostile forces.

On the ground, Air Force joint terminal attack controllers embedded with the SDF called in precision strikes for more than three hours from aircraft and ground artillery, directing F-15Es, MQ-9s, B-52s, AC-130s and AH-64 Apaches to release multiple precision fire munitions and conduct strafing runs against the advancing aggressor force, stopping their advance and destroying multiple artillery pieces and tanks.

As the hostile forces turned west and retreated, we ceased fire.

Despite the attack being unprovoked, it was not entirely unexpected.  The coalition observed a slow buildup of personnel and equipment the previous week, and we reminded Russian officials of the SDF and coalition presence via the telephone deconfliction line.  This was well in advance of the enemy forces' attack.

I know you're going to ask, so I'm going to be clear that I will not speculate on the composition of this force or whose control they were under.  As I've said throughout my nearly two years commanding coalition air forces, we are focused on a singular enemy:  ISIS.  We're not looking for a fight with anyone else, but as Secretary Mattis said last week, “If you threaten us, it will be your longest and worst day.”
Q:  Hello, General.

When you -- when there were conversations taking place between -- between the coalition and Russia ahead of the strike, did you -- did you get the sense that any of the people on the -- any of the people on the ground were controlled by Russia or were indeed Russian mercenaries?

And, what was -- how would you characterize the -- the conversations that took place over that time?  Did you get any push back from Russia?  Did they say, "Go ahead.  It's fine to strike"?  Could you just give us a little bit on insight into that, please?

GEN. HARRIGIAN:  Sure.  Thanks for that question.

So what I would tell you is, as I indicated, the deconfliction line has remained open and it remained open throughout the entire week prior to that strike.  And the discussions on the line remained professional and we have remained in a position where we continue to talk with them on a daily basis.

As I mentioned, I don't -- I don't want to speculate on -- on who was down there.  That remains something that we'll continue to take a look at and work our way through.  But I think it's important to acknowledge that prior, during and after, the deconfliction line was open, was used, and as I highlighted, remained a professional way to work deconfliction in that particular area that the operation occurred.

Q:  (Inaudible) -- my questions where I was asking you to just characterize a little bit those conversations.  Did the Russians give you any resistance to you conducting these strikes?

GEN. HARRIGIAN:  As I said, the -- the conversations remain professional.  The ability to talk about how we were going to deconflict and what that entailed did not get into specifics that would lead me to anything but professional conversations occurring throughout the entire time that built up to this situation occurring.

Apparently SAA wanted to move and capture some oil fields that is under SDF control, and where crushed by USA.

[Loud Whispers]

Making things undesirable has no physical effect on a B-2 bomber travelling undetected past your radar stations and delivering a warhead.  Making things undesirable is a method to de-incentivize attacks, not prevent them or stop them when they are underway.

One makes you not want to attack, the other prevents the attack from occurring.  I was speaking specifically about the latter when saying that I really don't believe that any world power can actually protect themselves, all we can do is make it uncomfortable and hope that whoever is on the other end won't decide to do it anyway (the vast majority won't).

Up to the time of the last War civilians were exempt from the worst perils of war. They suffered sometimes from hunger, sometimes from the loss of sons and relatives serving in the Army. But now, in addition to this, they suffered from the constant fear not only of being killed themselves, but, what is perhaps worse for a man, of seeing his wife and children killed from the air. These feelings exist among the ordinary people throughout the whole of the civilized world, but I doubt if many of those who have that fear realize one or two things with reference to the cause of that fear.

That is the appalling speed which the air has brought into modern warfare; the speed of the attack. The speed of the attack, compared with the attack of an army, is as the speed of a motor-car to that of a four-in-hand. In the next war you will find that any town within reach of an aerodrome can be bombed within the first five minutes of war to an extent inconceivable in the last War, and the question is, Whose morale will be shattered quickest by that preliminary bombing?

I think it is well also for the man in the street to realize that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed, whatever people may tell him. The bomber will always get through, and it is very easy to understand that if you realize the area of space. Take any large town you like on this island or on the Continent within reach of an aerodrome. For the defence of that town and its suburbs you have to split up the air into sectors for defence. Calculate that the bombing aeroplanes will be at least 20,000ft. high in the air, and perhaps higher, and it is a matter of mathematical calculation that you will have sectors of from 10 to hundreds of cubic miles.

Imagine 100 cubic miles covered with cloud and fog, and you can calculate how many aeroplanes you would have to throw into that to have much chance of catching odd aeroplanes as they fly through it. It cannot be done, and there is no expert in Europe who will say that it can. The only defence is in offence, which means that you have got to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves. I mention that so that people may realize what is waiting for them when the next war comes.

Stanley Baldwin, speaking as an MP in Parliament 1932. For a long time it has been apparent that one cannot totally immunize one's nation against attack, thus the only method to preserve the nation from attack, is to adopt an offensive posture and thus maintain a standoff. There is no meaningful distinction between preventing an attack by deploying defensive or offensive countermeasures on the strategical level, only the tactical. Any 3rd rate power can strike the USA, but they won't, because such an action would result in overwhelming retaliation

[NullForceOmega]

LW, There is a distinction, and the fact that one of the options doesn't work is EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.  The two are not the same thing. End. Of. Line.

I am not espousing that actual prevention is even possible, it would be preferable, but it doesn't function in the world as it currently stands.  And I am supporting the position that it isn't a viable option.

I'm not saying that the dissuasion method is bad, incorrect, or otherwise problematic.  Why the hell are you even arguing this?  I am stating exactly what that PM said, in somewhat simpler terms, and your statement that a dissuasion based defense is the same thing as a prevention based defense is flatly false.