World War III Updates

[O Face]

Good Old Lawman, such a jovial guy, finds a way to turn every conversation into some weird, unsolicited, dick measuring contest.  
I know an Air Force TACP who killed a bunch of guys with his rifle. That’s way more dead guys than a lot of Army Infantry dudes have killed…See how obnoxious that sounds?  
Anyway, always loved this story.  Air America UH-1 with an air to air kill on an AN-2. 
 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/incredible-story-air-america-uh-1d-huey-shot-north-vietnamese-2-colt-biplane/

Edited March 27, 2024 by O Face
.

[brabus]

Well if we’re counting UAS as shoot downs, guess I’m damn near an ace! (/sarcasm)

[O Face]

19 minutes ago, brabus said:

Well if we’re counting UAS as shoot downs, guess I’m damn near an ace! (/sarcasm)

Exactly!  Throw in a couple more Chinese hot air balloons and you’ll be giving Dick Bong a run for his money. 

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, Lawman said:

There are currently 2x US Apache pilots with air to air engagements against a type 3/4 UAS.

That would be 1 more kill than a lot of guys flying things with pointy noses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

2 hours ago, O Face said:

Good Old Lawman, such a jovial guy, finds a way to turn every conversation into some weird, unsolicited, dick measuring contest.  
I know an Air Force TACP who killed a bunch of guys with his rifle. That’s way more dead guys than a lot of Army Infantry dudes have killed…See how obnoxious that sounds?  
Anyway, always loved this story.  Air America UH-1 with an air to air kill on an AN-2. 
 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/incredible-story-air-america-uh-1d-huey-shot-north-vietnamese-2-colt-biplane/

I upvoted both comments just to stir the pot.

[Lawman]

Well if we’re counting UAS as shoot downs, guess I’m damn near an ace! (/sarcasm)

If hovering Helicopters hit with a bomb count yes we would like something done about the 1 way low cost cruise missiles. Plus historically V-1s counted.

Seriously, as I alluded too in another thread you do not want the Army working out its own solutions to this problem. Hearing some knucklehead yelling “Fox 3” over FH-secure should scare the hell out of all of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brabus]

The guy said Fox3?! Wow, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve worked with some awesome 64 guys, but I also have been surprised at some of the mouth breathers flying them.

[Lawman]

The guy said Fox3?! Wow, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve worked with some awesome 64 guys, but I also have been surprised at some of the mouth breathers flying them.

No, just making the point of having guys with an Acitve RF missile designed to kill tanks but “hey look it works on drones” isn’t a solution anybody wants. The prox fuse was put there for the FIAC mission over the Gulf. Air Defense of force isn’t in the METL, and nobody wants it there (except maybe Warren, but we all agree that guy is crazy).

The fact they did it surprised everybody. It wasn’t planned for that either, there was desire to have something in the back pocket since the KA-52s had started carrying Archers. That ECAB commander was… special.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kaputt]

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/04/01/airman-starts-hunger-strike-white-house-over-gaza-inspired-another-airmans-self-immolation-death.html
 

Some real geniuses in the junior enlisted ranks these days.

[DirkDiggler]

In a bit of good news, the Israelis continue to stack up the Iranian body count.

 

 

[Guest nsplayr]

1 hour ago, kaputt said:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/04/01/airman-starts-hunger-strike-white-house-over-gaza-inspired-another-airmans-self-immolation-death.html
 

Some real geniuses in the junior enlisted ranks these days.

We really need to get our junior enlisted back into shady Dodge Charger loans and questionable Fayetteville-quality pussy. Seems like a better way to spend your leave.

🙄🤷‍♂️

[dream big]

12 hours ago, kaputt said:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/04/01/airman-starts-hunger-strike-white-house-over-gaza-inspired-another-airmans-self-immolation-death.html
 

Some real geniuses in the junior enlisted ranks these days.

Soon to be former Airman! 

[gearhog]

14 hours ago, kaputt said:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/04/01/airman-starts-hunger-strike-white-house-over-gaza-inspired-another-airmans-self-immolation-death.html
 

Some real geniuses in the junior enlisted ranks these days.

For some reason, I'm kinda doubting his enthusiasm for the cause.

[StoleIt]

18 hours ago, kaputt said:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/04/01/airman-starts-hunger-strike-white-house-over-gaza-inspired-another-airmans-self-immolation-death.html
 

Some real geniuses in the junior enlisted ranks these days.

Well then, he will be happy to hear that Hamas has cut the price of the FREE food/aid.

Unrelated: Didn't the US dispose of Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Somalia for the exact same thing Hamas is doing?

[arg]

20 hours ago, kaputt said:

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/04/01/airman-starts-hunger-strike-white-house-over-gaza-inspired-another-airmans-self-immolation-death.html
 

Some real geniuses in the junior enlisted ranks these days.

Don’t sell him short, six years and already a SRA.

[DirkDiggler]

Israel continues to do good work.

https://apple.news/APIQSH1_5RHm-1iOPVCvBjA

[Guest nsplayr]

So are we 🇺🇸

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_missile_strikes_in_Yemen

[ClearedHot]

10 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Israel continues to do good work.

https://apple.news/APIQSH1_5RHm-1iOPVCvBjA

And Iran is threatening a "large, direct strike on Israel proper"...that should calm things down.  Last night Uncle Joe caved to the left and called for a Cease Fire.  Terrible situation, Hamas can not be allowed to survive, but you can't kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process.

10 hours ago, nsplayr said:

So are we 🇺🇸

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_missile_strikes_in_Yemen

More please!

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

And Iran is threatening a "large, direct strike on Israel proper"...that should calm things down.  Last night Uncle Joe caved to the left and called for a Cease Fire.  Terrible situation, Hamas can not be allowed to survive, but you can't kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process.

100%. But the thing that troubles me is, if I want to be consistent in my thinking, I have to consider the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed as a result of our response to a terrorist attack. How does one reconcile their opinion of those two operations without being hypocritical?

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

 Terrible situation, Hamas can not be allowed to survive, but you can't kill hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process.

More please!

Why not? A supportive population, in fact an actively supportive population, is a part of the war machine. 

 

If we start down this road then we have to retroactively denounce Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, etc... Easy to do when it's not our own brothers and kids being killed on the frontlines. If I have to choose between their civilians and our soldiers in a war they started, it's a pretty easy calculation for me. No country in the history of combat has spent as much energy, money, and blood protecting the civilians of their enemies, not even the US. 

War is ugly specifically because if requires the mass death of civilians. 

[ClearedHot]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Why not? A supportive population, in fact an actively supportive population, is a part of the war machine. 

 

If we start down this road then we have to retroactively denounce Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden, etc... Easy to do when it's not our own brothers and kids being killed on the frontlines. If I have to choose between their civilians and our soldiers in a war they started, it's a pretty easy calculation for me. No country in the history of combat has spent as much energy, money, and blood protecting the civilians of their enemies, not even the US. 

War is ugly specifically because if requires the mass death of civilians. 

Because we, and by extension, Israel, are better than that.  To defeat Hamas you likely don't have to starve a bunch of kids to death.  War is ugly, Total War is even uglier.  Using your logic why we just green flag Israel to drop a nuke on Rafah and get it over nice, clean and quick.  We were pretty upset after 9/11 but I didn't see us firebombing cities in Afghanistan.  Innocents died, but we at least tried to be measured in our response and we most certainly did not purposely starve a population that was supporting the Taliban.

Hamas started the current fight but I hope you are not so Naive as to think Israel has no dirt on their hands.  I FULLY support Israel and their right to exist.  I do not support Hamas in any way, shape, or form but Israel has also done some shitty things to the Palestinians through the years in the name of "survival".  An actively supportive population is a very shallow argument given the living conditions, most have not choice.  Not an excuse, but certainly a consideration.    

[Lord Ratner]

I'll go in pieces:

23 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

To defeat Hamas you likely don't have to starve a bunch of kids to death.

Israel is not starving anyone. Hamas is. It's not Israel stopping the aid, it's the complete absence of anyone to receive and distribute it. Because Hamas wants more dead Palestinians. They have stolen aid for years, and continue to do so. Those deaths are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with Israel.

23 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Using your logic why we just green flag Israel to drop a nuke on Rafah and get it over nice, clean and quick.  We were pretty upset after 9/11 but I didn't see us firebombing cities in Afghanistan. 

Because as you are pointing out, what matters is how you wage the war. What does not matter is how many innocent civilians die as a result. You wage the war ethically, and that's all you can do. Especially in this situation where civilian deaths are specifically being used as a countermeasure to Israeli attempts to destroy Hamas, arguing that the arbitrary number of deaths is somehow relevant is literally playing into their strategy.

23 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

but we at least tried to be measured in our response and we most certainly did not purposely starve a population that was supporting the Taliban.

 

You seem to have bought the Hamas narrative that Israel is starving the Palestinians. Nonsense.

23 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Hamas started the current fight but I hope you are not so Naive as to think Israel has no dirt on their hands. 

Sure, but that's global policy anywhere and anytime. It's not like the Allies didn't have culpability for isolating Germany and turning it into a pariah state. That ended up with World war II, but we still killed a fuck ton of Nazis. The dirt on their hands arguments is always used to draw a moral equivalence between the two belligerents in a war. But there is no moral equivalence here. Israel has never done what Hamas did, and by any rational account would never do what Hamas did. Hamas not only did it, but the vast majority of their population celebrated it. Anyone who has even the slightest difficulty understanding who the good guys and who the bad guys are in this war, and I'm not saying that's you, has no place in the discussion. Ultimately you have to base your judgment of a society on what they do, and what they proclaim. Based on this, I choose 100,000 dead Palestinians today over 100,000 dead Jews over time. I would rather neither, but not all civilians are equal, because not all countries are equal, and not all cultures are equal.

 

23 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

An actively supportive population is a very shallow argument given the living conditions, most have not choice.  Not an excuse, but certainly a consideration.    

Hamas was chosen by and supported by the Palestinians. At a certain point the population has to be responsible for the type of country they create. Again, that doesn't mean you have a green light to intentionally Target civilians. But that's not what's happening, and that's not what I questioned from your first post. The number of dead civilians does not serve as the measure for whether a war is fought ethically. There would be a whole hell of a lot fewer deaths if Hamas didn't purposefully put their military targets under and around civilians. And our long-standing rules of engagement allow for killing those civilians. Doesn't make it fun, but it doesn't make it unethical either.

Edited April 11, 2024 by Lord Ratner

[ClearedHot]

7 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'll go in pieces:

7 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Israel is not starving anyone. Hamas is. It's not Israel stopping the aid, it's the complete absence of anyone to receive and distribute it. Because Hamas wants more dead Palestinians. They have stolen aid for years, and continue to do so. Those deaths are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with Israel.

The facts and reporting would say otherwise.  Fewer crossing points, random rejections, extended inspections.  Also, Israel striking an aide convoy doesn't help the situation.

10 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because as you are pointing out, what matters is how you wage the war. What does not matter is how many innocent civilians die as a result. You wage the war ethically, and that's all you can do. Especially in this situation where civilian deaths are specifically being used as a countermeasure to Israeli attempts to destroy Hamas, arguing that the arbitrary number of deaths is somehow relevant is literally playing into their strategy.

Review your own statement...ETHICALLY.  Again, they could do far more.  I believe they have gone to great lengths but they can still do better...see aide convoy above.

11 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

You seem to have bought the Hamas narrative that Israel is starving the Palestinians. Nonsense.

Not at all, I've read the reports from the ground, the number of crossing points, the number of trucks Israel lets through, the rejections without cause.  Israel does not get all of the blame, but they certainly get some.

13 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Israel has never done what Hamas did, and by any rational account would never do what Hamas did. Hamas not only did it, but the vast majority of their population celebrated it. Anyone who has even the slightest difficulty understanding who the good guys and who the bad guys are in this war, and I'm not saying that's you, has no place in the discussion. Ultimately you have to base your judgment of a society on what they do, and what they proclaim. Based on this, I choose 100,000 dead Palestinians today over 100,000 dead Jews over time. I would rather neither, but not all civilians are equal, because not all countries are equal, and not all cultures are equal.

Of course Israel would never do what Hamas has done.., see my they (we), are better that that argument above.  However, if you are being intellectually honest you have to look at the situation holistically and over time.  Since 1948 Israel has conservatively killed 66,000 Palestinians.  Don't get me wrong, I know who the good guys are here but when viewing conflict it helps to view the history and the long game. 

25 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Hamas was chosen by and supported by the Palestinians. At a certain point the population has to be responsible for the type of country they create. Again, that doesn't mean you have a green light to intentionally Target civilians. But that's not what's happening, and that's not what I questioned from your first post. The number of dead civilians does not serve as the measure for whether a war is fought ethically. There would be a whole hell of a lot fewer deaths if Hamas didn't purposefully put their military targets under and around civilians. And our long-standing rules of engagement allow for killing those civilians. Doesn't make it fun, but it doesn't make it unethical either.

If you believe the Palestinians had a choice when it comes to Hamas you truly don't understand what has happened there.  Not saying they are right, but they are a complete pawn and victim of other interests and players. 

Again, Hamas is EVIL and MUST be destroyed.  You are dead on to point out they want the casualties (which kind of proves my entire argument about having a choice), and intentionally placing civilians (and hostages), in, near and under targets has drastically increased the civilian casualties.  Those facts are a sad fact of war and something that can't be helped.  However, what is happening the with aid is a completely different story and if you pause to do a little research you will see BOTH sides hold some blame. 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The facts and reporting would say otherwise.  Fewer crossing points, random rejections, extended inspections.  Also, Israel striking an aide convoy doesn't help the situation.

You remember where 1200+ Israelis were literally raped, tortured and murdered? Sorry but the hunger of the supportive population does not trump the security of the attacked population. Anything else would be an abdication of responsibility to the Israeli people. And a friendly fire accident is another regular feature of war. Sucks. We sure had our fair share.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

Again, they could do far more.  I believe they have gone to great lengths but they can still do better...see aide convoy above.

Unless you are arguing that the WCK convoy was intentional, then just saying "do better" is horseshit. Hamas could do better too. Everyone could do better. Lets make this useful and say how many dead Israeli soldiers are a fair exchange for how many dead Palestinian "civilians." Until then it's just sideline commentary. The Palestinians have a government, that's who should be worried about their hunger and safety. Instead it is up to Israel to move hundreds of thousands of people who cheered the rape and torture of their wives and daughters so the terrorist psychopaths they are protecting can be hunted and killed. But sure. Do better. Funny how the standard is always "do better" up to and past the point that the objective can no longer be accomplished. 

 

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

However, if you are being intellectually honest you have to look at the situation holistically and over time.  Since 1948 Israel has conservatively killed 66,000 Palestinians.  Don't get me wrong, I know who the good guys are here but when viewing conflict it helps to view the history and the long game.

And how many of those were sheltered over or around the many varieties of Islamic militants? Subtract those. How many were storming the border fences or checkpoints? Subtract those. How many were civilians killed as the primary target, not collateral damage in response to direct attacks on Israel? That's the more relevant number. 

 

Once again, do you believe we were wrong for Hiroshima? Dresden? Because we did blockade Japanese oil, and most of Europe made Germany into a pariah state after WWI. Holistically is a cop-out. There is a line between geopolitical competition and outright acts of war. Hamas, not Israel, started this war, to the cheering of their poor, hungry population. It is Israel's responsibility to it's people to end the threat. When Israel starts raping Palestinians, bombing apartments, or dumping humanitarian aid into the sea to "make a point," then we will have the beginning of a basic equivalence. 

 

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

If you believe the Palestinians had a choice when it comes to Hamas you truly don't understand what has happened there.  Not saying they are right, but they are a complete pawn and victim of other interests and players

They are humans with free will. Yes, pawns. Yes exploited. So too was every population in history that eventually found their way to peace and freedom. And they elected Hamas in 2006. Hamas has since taken total control, but since when did Americans decide that populations are no longer responsible for their destiny?

Once again, how many Israelis should die to save the lives of people who want Jewish blood in the streets more than they want their children to eat or survive?

 

Americans and Westerners have a really tough time understanding religious fanaticism. When death is a reward for killing your enemies, you can't freedom and compassion your way to changing hearts and minds. How we haven't learned this after the last 20 years is mystifying. 

[FourFans]

I know, I know, two seasoned veterans having a serious discussion about ethics and yes, innocents dying is legitimately never good and it's a tough situation...but all I keep hearing is:

 

[tac airlifter]

19 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

 We were pretty upset after 9/11 but I didn't see us firebombing cities in Afghanistan. 

And we lost. 

can you provide an example of a war that was won by the side that respected and protected civilians when the other side doesn’t?  I think you’re expecting the impossible from Israel.