With all that “active stealth”, it’s funny that you never hear of them ruling the skies at Red Flag :stupid:

Playing devil’s advocate here, (as I don’t believe in active stealth- yet), the French wouldn’t turn these systems on during Red Flag, would they? Just as the US won’t use the full extent of their systems capabilities …just in case.

I am not implying anything, having no idea of the nationality of the Buk crew, and not knowing what motive they had for firing at MH17. Nor do I know what motive Russia had for making a Buk TELAR (with or without a Russian crew) available to the rebels. What I do know (and what Russia knew) is that the TELAR has very limited air-surveillance capability, so was not safe to use in stand-alone mode when in proximity to an international air route. Jane’s realised this, and explained the situation in a TV interview conducted on the day of the shoot-down, so it should have been equally obvious to whoever in Russia decided to provide a Buk TELAR to the rebels.

Wait a minute, has the origin of the TELAR been established? I thought it was a TELAR taken from local storage, not one that was specifically given to the rebels by Russia. I can’t find anything with conclusive proof that it is Russian. Maybe my google fu is failing. And why would they give them a TELAR of all things? I can imagine a hundred other things they would need more before ever thinking of a BUK!

No – but they are charged with crimes. They are held responsible for their actions & the results of those actions, including the deaths they cause.

Swerve, I usually avoid responding to your posts, as we have diametrically opposed views on a number of things. However, I see no harm answering to this one.

Yes they should be charged, and if they are identified they will be.

Where I am trying to draw the line is that we don’t know (yet) if they wanted to shoot down the airliner or a plane they thought was their enemy. The two are vastly different.

The consequences of their actions will weigh heavily on them no matter which one of the two it is. But there is an all important difference underlying the two versions.

I disagree — the people firing the missile definitely should be held responsible for this.

I am afraid, that to hold people accountable for anything more than a tragic mistake two things need to happen.

1. Prove that they wanted to shoot down the airliner OR
2. Prove that they knew how to fully use the BUK and failed to do so via negligence or by intention (see point 1).

Rebels cannot be expected to fully know how to use a complicated (no matter how old) AA system. They don’t even need to know how a military plane looks like. They are rebels (or freedom fighters or whatever else you want to call them)

If the investigators can indeed prove the two points above, they can prosecute the hell out of anyone they want.

That may have been their judgement, but Russian judgement has proven to be shaky in the past, as Operation RYaN demonstrated in the early 1980s. (Never was such a massive intelligence-gathering operation launched on the basis of so few facts.)

The land-based Standard has nothing to do with countering the Russia ICBM force, and there are good indications that Russia knows that. But why they ignore this reality is a question that falls into the realm of politics, a topic that is of little interest to me.

The mission statement for the shield is mentioning intercepting ballistic missiles whilst still in space. So.. !

:confused: huh? I guess I do not understand now..

The aid convoy video, someone thinks it was a hellfire missile.

Well, the seventh gen of the Corvette is marvelous.. Except the tail lights.. Still, I would not mind selling my Carrera and get this one.. But that’s pretty much all Made in the USA I would ever want to drive.. and the resale value in Europe would be quite poor, I am afraid 🙁

Well after 7 gens they are bound to get something right.