More Hilarity - "Can I have my spy plane back?"

[Renegade]

I nearly peed myself laughing at this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-12-13/Iran-Obama-drone/51855044/1

The Obama administration said it has delivered a formal request to Iran for the return of a U.S. surveillance drone captured by Iranian armed forces, but is not hopeful that Iran will comply.

...

President Obama said Monday that the U.S. wants the top-secret aircraft back. "We have asked for it back. We'll see how the Iranians respond," Obama said during a White House news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Monday.

In an interview broadcast live Monday night on Venezuelan state television, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said nothing to suggest his country would grant the U.S. request.

"The Americans have perhaps decided to give us this spy plane," Ahmadinejad said. "We now have control of this plane."

Touche!

"Given Iran's behavior to date we do not expect them to comply but we are dealing with all of these provocations and concerning actions taken by Iran in close concert with our closest allies and partners," she said.

Wait, hold on for a moment... The US is prepping for war with Iran, but it's IRAN that is PROVOKING the US?

Bwahahahahahahahaa~!

You can't make this stuff up!


I just don't know... But it seems like the "real" news out there just gets crazier and crazier. I can't help but laugh hysterically!

[eleman]

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

1984

[Renegade]

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

1984

Hahahaha~! (Albeit, the truth there is rather dark. I suppose the only thing to do now is laugh.)

I punched you! You're provoking me now!

[IainB]

I reckon the Iranians would not consider this to be all that funny. It's probably a pretty serious business to them, never mind the US.
Déjà vu - 1960 U-2 incident

[Renegade]

I reckon the Iranians would not consider this to be all that funny. It's probably a pretty serious business to them, never mind the US.
Déjà vu - 1960 U-2 incident

I reckon not! They know that they're going to be invaded soon, so that's not funny in the least.

It's just the sheer audacity of US officials to basically punch them in the face, then say that it's the Iranians that are being belligerent. It's just too much. I can't help but laugh.

[rgdot]

Since that's the place I was born in I am tempted to post something political but since the green issue I am on the 'Limitpostus' pill 

[IainB]

I reckon not! They know that they're going to be invaded soon, so that's not funny in the least.

It's just the sheer audacity of US officials to basically punch them in the face, then say that it's the Iranians that are being belligerent. It's just too much. I can't help but laugh.

Well, I read that, in the '80s, US military strategists based their scenarios for WW3 as likely to be triggered by instability/war in the Middle East.
You may well be right - maybe they actually are about to be invaded by the US. That could be the trigger.
I hope it's all posturing though - for all our sakes (e.g., Kennedy and Russians in the Cuba crisis).

I don't know about US "audacity" though - the US have been caught red-handed spying on the Iranians, and that's embarrassing, but it will come as no surprise to the Iranians. Many nations seem to be quietly spying on each other.
Is it a belligerent act, though - a punch in the face? Spying seems to be a kind of a military passive-strategic act - but not bellicose or an act of war in itself. It's not a Pearl Harbour type of event anyway.
Much as I rate the US military, I wonder if it isn't stupidity rather than audacity.

How so?
It was evidence of carelessness for the US to have a U-2 spyplane downed in 1960 - a risk that could have been predicted and mitigated - and they should have learned from that. So to have one of those unmanned high-tech spyplanes downed by the Iranians - well, it's unacceptably poor risk management - if those planes are really as valuable as is being made out.
They could surely have supposed that the Iranians probably had the Chinese and/or Russians helping them with the technology to knock one down intact, and then mitigated the risk. Or maybe the Iranians wing-tilted the drone in the same way as the Brits did to the German V-bombs in WW2?
In any event, I suspect heads may roll over this in the US military.

Similarly it was evidence of extreme carelessness and risk-taking of the British to lose 3 ships (I think it was) and large numbers of lives in the Falklands war by apparently losing sight of the fact that the enemy (the Argentinians) had French Exocet missile technology - which the British ships had no defence against (I think they belatedly fitted a defence system to vessels after those events). Also, because some of the boats hit were made of magnesium alloy, they burned up when they got hit. A magnesium fire can't be put out very easily, so the boats were a complete loss.

I don't know how warship designers could have overlooked such an elementary fact about magnesium alloys, but there you are.
Magnesium looks pretty in those bright flashes that you see in fireworks.

[wraith808]

I nearly peed myself laughing at this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-12-13/Iran-Obama-drone/51855044/1

What that doesn't include is the alternatives considered.  Considering the alternatives, this was a moderated approach.

Otherwise, we'd be at war.

[J-Mac]

I reckon the Iranians would not consider this to be all that funny. It's probably a pretty serious business to them, never mind the US.
Déjà vu - 1960 U-2 incident

And yet another oldie but goodie...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)

I did not realize until I went to fetch the above link that the USS Pueblo is  STILL being held by North Korea! Since 1968! Guess we showed them...   

Jim

[f0dder]

An early christmas present, a little appetizer - a taste of the democracy that's to come.

As popular war advances, peace is closer.

[40hz]

I don't know about US "audacity" though - the US have been caught red-handed spying on the Iranians, and that's embarrassing, but it will come as no surprise to the Iranians. Many nations seem to be quietly spying on each other.
Is it a belligerent act, though - a punch in the face? Spying seems to be a kind of a military passive-strategic act - but not bellicose or an act of war in itself. It's not a Pearl Harbour type of event anyway.

There are international conventions (actually its "more guidelines than rules" as Capt. Barbarossa would say) which cover what are considered acceptable levels of spying. Necessary because every country does some spying on its enemies and allies alike. It's unofficial and policed by a fairly strict tit for tat response structure. But it's very real nevertheless. Satellites are generally considered ok. Ditto high altitude spy planes - with the understanding they may be shot at with the intent of destroying or bringing them down. (An unavoidable accommodation since the country making the spy flights usually denies their existence - which therefor makes spy planes "unidentified aerial objects." Zapping a UFO is not considered an act of war. Which is also why detected unidentified objects are always ordered to identify themselves prior to hostile actions being taken against them. Don't respond? You're now fair game.)

Low level flights, which are in the operational range of tactical military aircraft, get a little more tricky. If the flight has no direct weaponry onboard (missles, etc.) it usually gets treated much as any other spy flight does. It only becomes an act of war if the country pushing it has the necessary means to commit a return belligerent action. If they don't (and it's seldom wise even when they do) it just does the usual playout in the world press and diplomatic arenas.

It was evidence of carelessness for the US to have a U-2 spyplane downed in 1960 - a risk that could have been predicted and mitigated -

If the published information is true (always up for question with this sort of thing) the U2 got shot down because the Soviets had made breakthrough improvements in the capabilities of their SAMs which allowed them to strike targets at altitudes much higher then US military planners thought would be possible for at least another year. Please note that being "out of range" was the U2's sole defense. It had no intrinsic stealth capabilities and carried no defensive weapon system. It was considered generally safe to use because all it really could do was fly very high, very far, and very fast. Oh yeah...and take a lot of very sharp pictures! (And the Soviets knew that. They might not have liked it. But it would have been a stretch to go to war over it.)

So I don't think that's so much being careless as it is the Soviets being very careful. Obviously they were better at keeping their secrets than the US was at ferreting them out when it came to missile technology.

Also, because some of the boats hit were made of magnesium alloy, they burned up when they got hit. A magnesium fire can't be put out very easily, so the boats were a complete loss.

I don't know how warship designers could have overlooked such an elementary fact about magnesium alloys, but there you are.
Magnesium looks pretty in those bright flashes that you see in fireworks.

If the ships were built in the mid to late Cold War era, it would have made perfect sense. Those ships would have been designed to fight the Soviet Union.  Because the Soviet navy and submarine fleet carried tactical nuclear torpedos there is no armor or substance that could protect against a hit from that type of weapon. The strategy then switched to improving survivability through increased cruising speeds and maneuverability made possible by decreasing the overall weight of the vessel. The USA switched to using aluminum for much of its ship construction since magnesium would have been cost prohibitive for the number of ships the US was planning to deploy. GB either decided to spend the money on the lighter magnesium, or could better afford it since it would be fielding fewer ships.

Either way, for when those ships were built, it probably was the best compromise based on the deployment scenarios they were designed for. Why there was no Exocet defense installed is another matter. But if I recall, nobody knew Argentina had those at the start of the Falklands crisis. France had sold them but never informed its allies that it had.

Now that speed and maneuverability is no longer an optimal defense thanks to space-based tracking and targeting systems, the newest naval designs call for stealthier vessels. Taking a cue from multipurpose/multimission bomber designs, all the newest warships being built are designed to be multipurpose stealth weapon platforms.

The days of the heavily armored dreadnought battleships are over. The new navies of major world powers will likely consist of two types of submarine, aircraft carriers, missile frigates, and small fast multipurpose attack ships. All will be lightly armored and as cloaked as the state of stealth technology will allow.

[IainB]

@40hz: Interesting comments.
I can see why magnesium might have slipped through as you suggest, under the circumstances you describe, but it stretches one's credibility. From experience of being involved in the design, modelling and manufacture of weapons systems, it is certainly true that the ships' design engineers would have included considerations about all known physical properties of magnesium in the design/build and the performance of the material in operation and under the potential likely field/deployment operational extremes that could be experienced in warfare.

You could put it down to probably being a calculated risk - magnesium does have to get pretty hot to initiate combustion, after all - but then again, incendiary bombs have been a known quantity in warfare for ages - e.g., since early Greek times at least. From memory, I think the 3 vessels that burned up in the Falklands war could not be extinguished and burned till they sank whilst being towed. The same problems have occurred with magnesium-bodied race cars that caught fire in the '60s. Difficult to douse the fire once the metal starts burning - gets up to about 3,000°C.
In all cases, I think the magnesium fire of these structures was not regarded as a cause of death or potential risk to life.

So maybe the magnesium-built vessels were regarded as expendable if they did get hit sufficiently badly so as to catch fire. By that stage they could arguably have fulfilled their design purpose/function anyway, and the asset cost could have been irrelevant.

By the same token that might be true of these downed high tech UAVs (the one in Iran and now one in the Seychelles) - i.e., the military might regard them as being expendable..
Since no-one has a monopoly on defence technology, then for the US to be in the lead, they would need to keep that technology advancing at a relatively rapid rate to keep ahead of the game (i.e., other foreign technology advancements), and so it would presumably only be a matter of time before the artefacts of the existing technology became obsolete anyway. Example is encryption. What once was held to be proprietary and/or "special" military-strategic knowledge becomes commonplace. GPS is another, though I recall that some act of Congress(?) ensured that the publicly accessible GPS does not have the same resolution/"granularity" as the military version.

In any event, as far as these drones go, I think it hardly likely that the US would make the mistake of dropping the equivalent of the Enigma Machine into foreign hands. Thus, saying that they want the UAV debris back, rather than being important, could just be a step in damage control/mitigation. It also would make the foreign power think they have some really valuable intelligence asset, when all they actually have is an expendable and broken drone.

The days of the heavily armored dreadnought battleships are over. The new navies of major world powers will likely consist of two types of submarine, aircraft carriers, missile frigates, and small fast multipurpose attack ships. All will be lightly armored and as cloaked as the state of stealth technology will allow.

That was interesting news to me. I had not realised that this was the case. Perhaps I should have.
I often wondered if Navy vessels were morphing into something else. I suppose the technology itself is kind of "fluid independent" - i.e., will work in air or water.
Land-based technology is probably a different matter. The clever French ensured that there would be no more Maginot lines anyway.

[IainB]

Interesting...Finland 'finds Patriot missiles' on China-bound ship
Quite some time ago, I stopped implicitly believing any BBC report about anything, because they seem to have been engaged in so much propaganda. However, if this report (see link above) is corroborated independently by other news agencies, then it may be evidence of a very serious state of affairs.

I wonder.
Could this UAV thing now make a lot of sense?
Could it be that maybe the Iranians actually had that UAV delivered to them? That would explain why it seems to have appeared as though it was intact/undamaged. But they wouldn't want to let on that they had bought or been given the thing, because that might endanger their sources. So they could have shot one down, so the (US would know they had lost a UAV), destroying it in the process, and then displayed this intact model as the one they purportedly brought to earth in such an immaculate state.

[Renegade]

Interesting...Finland 'finds Patriot missiles' on China-bound ship
Quite some time ago, I stopped implicitly believing any BBC report about anything, because they seem to have been engaged in so much propaganda. However, if this report (see link above) is corroborated independently by other news agencies, then it may be evidence of a very serious state of affairs.

I wonder.
Could this UAV thing now make a lot of sense?
Could it be that maybe the Iranians actually had that UAV delivered to them? That would explain why it seems to have appeared as though it was intact/undamaged. But they wouldn't want to let on that they had bought or been given the thing, because that might endanger their sources. So they could have shot one down, so the (US would know they had lost a UAV), destroying it in the process, and then displayed this intact model as the one they purportedly brought to earth in such an immaculate state.

Well, that sounds kind of nutty, but stranger things have happened. I just can't get around how the US/UK have been posturing themselves to invade Iran, so giving them a drone doesn't seem likely. But it looks like the UK has its eye on Somalia now.

http://rt.com/news/uk-somalia-threat-summit-575/

God only knows what's really going on.

[Carol Haynes]

The Obama administration said it has delivered a formal request to Iran for the return of a U.S. surveillance drone captured by Iranian armed forces, but is not hopeful that Iran will comply.

Now lets turn this round - if Iran sent a spy plane over Washington I'm sure the US would return it without question.

Terrifying (and stupid) as the whole thing is you have to wonder if Obama is actually more intelligent than George W. Bush because everything seems to indicate "White House Out to Lunch" (nothing new there then).

Reminds me of the huge amount of hope we had in the UK when Tony Blair was originally made PM, the same seems to have happened with the new politics Obama promised.

Hope is the commodity used to win elections these days, and the first casualty of every new government!

[Renegade]

Now lets turn this round - if Iran sent a spy plane over Washington I'm sure the US would return it without question.

Hahahahaha~!

Oh yes! We all know the White House is so consistent and honest. (Egyptian/Libyan/wherever protesters = good. Protesters in the US = bad.)

Terrifying (and stupid) as the whole thing is you have to wonder if Obama is actually more intelligent than George W. Bush because everything seems to indicate "White House Out to Lunch" (nothing new there then).

Reminds me of the huge amount of hope we had in the UK when Tony Blair was originally made PM, the same seems to have happened with the new politics Obama promised.

Hope is the commodity used to win elections these days, and the first casualty of every new government!

I really hate that, because it's true.

I'm hoping and praying that Ron Paul wins in 2012 though. He's been consistent with the same message for forever and a day. I can't seem him winning then changing.

He really is the only hope.

Help us Ron Paul! You're our only hope~!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIFJLMyUwrg

However, I'm just an observer...

[J-Mac]

I have a feeling that those 20 year old newsletters may have killed Ron Paul's chances in a general election. Also, the letter warning of coming "race wars". Sounded somewhat reasonable till they surfaced, I admit. Oddly enough, they originally resurfaced during the last presidential primary season in 2008.

Jim

[wraith808]

Terrifying (and stupid) as the whole thing is you have to wonder if Obama is actually more intelligent than George W. Bush because everything seems to indicate "White House Out to Lunch" (nothing new there then).

Reminds me of the huge amount of hope we had in the UK when Tony Blair was originally made PM, the same seems to have happened with the new politics Obama promised.

Hope is the commodity used to win elections these days, and the first casualty of every new government!

I really hate that, because it's true.

I'm hoping and praying that Ron Paul wins in 2012 though. He's been consistent with the same message for forever and a day. I can't seem him winning then changing.

He really is the only hope.

Help us Ron Paul! You're our only hope~!

Everybody seems to forget that there are three branches of the government in the US for a reason- checks and balances.  Though the president does have a lot of power, he is not all powerful and can't act alone.  And in this case, there's been very little that he could do to make things better, with the state of politics in Washington.  Unless that changes, no matter who gets into office, there won't be much difference, other than the spin.

Basically, with any president, you win with your base + independents to your slant, then you govern from the middle.  The only problem is today, the middle is no-man's land.  He's tried to make the same shift that most presidents have, but it can't work in this environment.

[IainB]

Yes, but who could be in a position to sell Patriot missiles (a lot of them too) to foreign powers?
Might the same be true of UAVs?
Why were the Patriot missiles put in the cargo hold apparently so carelessly that not even a dunderhead could miss them?

[Renegade]

Everybody seems to forget that there are three branches of the government in the US for a reason- checks and balances. 

Yes. This branch writes the checks, so that branch can increase it's bank balance, and... (Sorry - couldn't resist~!)

Everybody seems to forget that there are three branches of the government in the US for a reason- checks and balances.  Though the president does have a lot of power, he is not all powerful and can't act alone.  And in this case, there's been very little that he could do to make things better, with the state of politics in Washington.  Unless that changes, no matter who gets into office, there won't be much difference, other than the spin.

I'm not so sure about that anymore...

The Obama administration has basically given the office of the president god-like powers to do whatever he wants. The next president could simply arrest all of the 3 branches of government as traitors and terrorists. (I couldn't resist that one either~! The sad thing is that it's actually true~!)

[wraith808]

The Obama administration has basically given the office of the president god-like powers to do whatever he wants. The next president could simply arrest all of the 3 branches of government as traitors and terrorists. (I couldn't resist that one either~! The sad thing is that it's actually true~!)

Ummm... what?  I don't get the reference.  And there's been a lot that hasn't been able to make it through, even down to extending unemployment benefits during the holiday season, so I *really* don't get it.

[IainB]

Sheesh. Now I don't get it.
Is this intending to suggest that Obama culd have sold the Patriot missiles to foreign powers, or given the UAV to Iran?

Or is what's really important the substantiation and dominance of one's paradigm as to whether Obama is good/bad or pink/green or thick/thin?

[40hz]

Everybody seems to forget that there are three branches of the government in the US for a reason- checks and balances.

Including the government.  

Starting with the Cold War, all real authority has increasingly been centralized in the Executive Branch -either through legislation or presidential fiat. Problem is, since the Supreme Court has been extremely reluctant to consider anything which seriously challenges Executive Privilege, there's little moral or legal objection being made from within the three branches.

And now that the Executive Branch has come out on several occasions with statements that the Supreme Court does not have legal jurisdiction over actions taken by the Executive Branch, (a very odd thing to say in a country which bases it's right to exist on law) I think it's pretty obvious where this country is heading.

Especially now that it's become obvious, to even the most clueless, that the Legislative Branch (i.e. the representative body) no longer represents the voters in any meaningful sense.

Though the president does have a lot of power, he is not all powerful and can't act alone.  And in this case, there's been very little that he could do to make things better, with the state of politics in Washington.  Unless that changes, no matter who gets into office, there won't be much difference, other than the spin.

The real problem is that the federal government has a large number of career bureaucrats who view themselves as the "real government" and see the president as little more than a figurehead/spokesperson for various power cabals within the bureaucracy. "Patriotism doesn't get reelected every four years," as a few neo-cons have put it.

This isn't crazy conspiracy theory either. It's generally acknowledged by many in government (starting with president Eisenhower) that the intelligence and security agencies are fairly out of control in this country. That's why you have so many overlapping agencies freely pursuing their own agendas. Often at cross purposes with each other. Often times acting without proper legal authority. And, increasingly, in complete defiance of any congressional attempts at oversight. Good thing there's executive privilege!

Because if there's anybody who should be charged with Contempt of Congress - it's the Executive Branch.

No surprise there.

Sad truth is, the current U.S. Legislature has earned, and well deserves, whatever contempt it's getting.

[Renegade]

Yes, but who could be in a position to sell Patriot missiles (a lot of them too) to foreign powers?
Might the same be true of UAVs?
Why were the Patriot missiles put in the cargo hold apparently so carelessly that not even a dunderhead could miss them?

No clue on that one. Yeah, anything is possible. But... I simply have no idea.

The Obama administration has basically given the office of the president god-like powers to do whatever he wants. The next president could simply arrest all of the 3 branches of government as traitors and terrorists. (I couldn't resist that one either~! The sad thing is that it's actually true~!)

Ummm... what?  I don't get the reference.  And there's been a lot that hasn't been able to make it through, even down to extending unemployment benefits during the holiday season, so I *really* don't get it.

NDAA 2012 gives the US govt the power to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone for *any reason*.

http://rt.com/news/terrorism-credit-cards-government-613/

Do you own flashlights? Or pay with cash instead of a credit card? And do grocery shopping for the week? I do. You probably do – and guess what, according to the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, that could make both of us terrorists.

So the next time you're in Wal-Mart, and you see someone buy a flashlight, report them! Especially if they pay with cash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czoww2l1xdw

[wraith808]

NDAA 2012 gives the US govt the power to arrest and indefinitely detain anyone for *any reason*.

http://rt.com/news/terrorism-credit-cards-government-613/

I don't think that points to what you think it does.  The smoking gun that was quoted there was distributed to military surplus stores.  I don't think wal-mart is a military surplus store.

And as far as the NDAA 2012, that's the legislative branch giving away authority to the executive branch, not the other way around.  Think about it- it made it through the house even as it stands.  The Republican controlled house.  What does that say?

And apparently (though not in as attention grabbing a headline) Obama has threatened to veto in its current form, so language is still being added to avoid a presidential veto.

More clarifications on the controversial terms.

Which, if true, would mean that Ron Paul and others who have supposedly read it, are either ignorant of these same facts (unlikely) or using the internet firestorm to their own advantage.

Which would be politics as usual.

Ron Paul can't save us now.  We can only save ourselves.