Corolinth wrote:
No, it is simply a matter of, "If you can operate the machine, you've read enough of the manual to identify transponder codes."
Which, by itself, means nothing. Having "read the manual" does not mean you have practiced actually doing the task under real conditions.
Quote:
When you shoot down a civilian passenger plane, you've either done it intentionally, or horribly **** up. There are no alternative scenarios.
Yes, obviously.
Quote:
That incident you linked only demonstrates that the United States Navy **** up. There's no excuse for it. They **** up and shot down a civilian transport plane. They were trained to properly identify their target, and they didn't do it. They **** up.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. They **** up - in other words, it was not an intentional shoot-down of the Iranian airliner. That was the entire point. The Iranians said it was negligent, we admitted it was negligent, and we paid a settlement. At no point did anyone claim it was done on purpose.
Quote:
In my field, when a highly trained, highly qualified professional misses a design flaw that causes the death of a few hundred people, he immediately goes from a competent and well-trained expert to an incompetent **** who will never work again. The United States military can most certainly be held to the same standards. That means that crew is not a well-trained crew. The moment they shot Iran Air Flight 655 down they became incompetent screw-ups. It doesn't matter that they're god-fearing red-blooded Americans, nor does it matter that they shot down Muslim rag-heads. They're screw-ups.
First, the military, or in the case in question the ship's captain (who is responsible) IS held to that standard. That captain pretty much ended his career. That said, that does not mean the crew was not trained properly; in point of fact training may have been partly responsible for the ****. The crew visualized what they had seen in training over and over rather than the actual facts and reported that to their officers. That does not make them "incompetent ****"; it means that there were mistakes throughout the chain of command - mistakes that were recognized and admitted.
The point of the example was that is is
not true that :
Quote:
You don't shoot down a passenger plane unless you want to shoot down a passenger plane.
CG-49 did not want to shoot down a passanger plane. They wanted to shoot down an F-14. Even Iran understood that, and hence they claimed it was a negligent shootdown, rather than an intentional one.
Finally, whether they were "red blooded Americans", or were "god fearing" or were shooting at "Ragheads" is entirely irrelevant. A mistake was made, and no one (me included) was claiming that they did the right thing- the
entire **** point was that a trained crew can still **** up - and your idiotic assertion that "at that point, they're ****" is a phenomenally stupid thing to say. Are you seriously claiming that they had retroactively not been trained because they made a mistake at that point?
We are not in your field, Coro. We're in my field. I am not a naval officer or crewman, nor an air defense system operator per se, but I do understand what goes into an air defense network, seeing as it constitutes "fire support" which is my primary military occupational specialty. More importantly. I understand
suppression of air defenses (SEAD) very well indeed.
Your field, moreover, is one where your critical work is conducted in a nice safe air-conditioned or heated office on a computer, in comfortable clothing after a good night's rest, a shower, and a decent breakfast. Yes, you may occasionally have to go out and get wet or cold occasionally, or work some long hours.
That isn't ****. You have no idea whatsoever what it is like having to perform tasks under real-life combat pressure, where you have seconds to react. I do. I know what it's like to come up with a plan after not sleeping for 36 straight hours. I know what fear, stress, and overexcitement and tunnel vision are like.
There is nothing wrong with your field. It's an important one that does valuable work. Don't, however, think that the fact that you know your field entitles you to lecture me on my field.
You managed to completely misinterpret my position for no better reason than to get your digs in at red-blooded americans, god fearing people, and some comment about ragheads, all of which had notihng to do with what I was saying. I was not defending the CG-49 shootdown - I was pointing it out as an example of how a crew much better trained than a bunch of random rebels can negligently shoot down an airliner, in response to Khross's assertion that it doesn't happen unless you want it to.
Coming in and making a big stink about how it was the result of error was
pretty much the entire point. Error as opposed to intentional malice. All you saw was an opportunity to shoot your uninformed mouth off about 'Merica and lecture someone with beliefs and positions you don't like. You seem to like living in 'Merica and the ability you have to criticize everyone else form a position of zero responsibility well enough.
You were in no position to do so. Next time, shut the **** up and listen. You might learn something. It doesn't bother me one bit that you haven't signed up; the point of an all-volunteer force is that not everyone does. That does not entitle you to shoot your mouth off on technical matters you don't understand - and no, being an engineer and good at math does not mean you understand. That's why training is important - you may be exceedingly well educated but you are
completely untrained. I don't come around telling you how to design things, so you might want to reconsider lecturing on how combat conditions work.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
