Would a BUK pick up a target at FL300+ using its own radar while still on the ground?
The basic missile is specced at 80k feet, not 25k, BTW. Most radar guided missiles can get any airliner, while most shoulder launched ones cannot.
The details don’t matter; Russia was 100% responsible no matter how you shake it. A renegade unit is no excuse; the owner should have kept better control.
Would a BUK pick up a target at FL300+ using its own radar while still on the ground?
I believe yes, similar systems were used in that way to target high altitude flying reconnaissance aircrafts.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Clearly this would be an act of war and whoever would invade Kaliningrad would correctly be identified as an agressor. And I am fairly sure that if there was a reason which would give Putin the trigger to use nuclear response to any such invasion, Kaliningrad would qualify.If NATO were pulled into the conflict in an active role however, Kaliningrad would be a target for sure and one which would hurt Russia. If you recall what happened when the transit route was closed for a while, there is not much doubt what would happen if the Oblast was attacked up front.
All that you write is correct. At this stage, I am convinced that – if it weren’t for Russia’s WMDs – a preemptive strike on Russia would actually be in our best interest, especially now that their armed forces are already severely weakened.
However, as Peter wrote a few pages back, due to the enormity of the Russian territory and it’s possession of nuclear weapons, we cannot hope to ever conquer and occupy Russia in the way that the Allies conquered and occupied Germany, which ultimately allowed us Germans to return to the fold of western civilisation – as a key ally.
So all this is a moot discussion and NATO will, in a way, be forced to react instead of act, as taking any kind of military initiative against Russia would be extremly dangerous and seen as aggressive even by unaligned states.
I am convinced that – if it weren’t for Russia’s WMDs – a preemptive strike on Russia would actually be in our best interest, especially now that their armed forces are already severely weakened.
However, as Peter wrote a few pages back, due to the enormity of the Russian territory
That is the problem. It is a vast country – as Hitler found out. The logistics would be quite impossible. And Germany had a well organised machine in WW2 and they still froze. Today’s Europe has no significant military capability. The UK and France have ICBMs for deterrence and the rest of Europe relies on the US for the same. But there is no land attack capability, and you need feet on the ground eventually. Even the whole world’s military could not conquer the vastness of Russia. And then, assuming you succeed initially, you would need millions of people to run the place. And ultimately Russia’s population, brainwashed for 100 years, is too far gone to ever become a normal country. It isn’t like e.g. Czechoslovakia which in 1989 could be returned to some sort of pre-1947 normality. Russia will always melt down unless there is one strong man totally in charge.
The best outcome will be a containment of Russia as it is, with some strong man running it. They will rebuild its military (via sales of gas, oil, and other stuff, mostly to the 3rd World) and will have another go at anyone without nuclear deterrence. So Ukraine will have to join NATO, and the rest of Europe will have to build up its military. Russia is just a bully which understands only one thing: muscle.
It doesn’t look like a long term solution, but I don’t think there is one. Nukes or no nukes, Russia is too big. Containment is the only option.
I thought this was a good pic, technically. Shutter speed must be ~100 microseconds; that projectile is doing about 1000m/sec. I suppose 1/10000 is available. But triggered how?
A court in the Netherlands has today sentenced three persons in absentia for the shooting down of MH17. For what it’s worth, the court wrote the same thing that I and Mooney_Driver wrote. The intention was not to shoot down an airliner and one of the convicted persons is a Ukrainian citizen who was commanding a unit of pro-russian separatists in Donbass.
(I’ve linked to The Guardian because it is an english-language newspaper which is not behind a paywall, but the same info can also be found in e.g. The Washington Post, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and others.)
MedEwok wrote:
At this stage, I am convinced that – if it weren’t for Russia’s WMDs – a preemptive strike on Russia would actually be in our best interest, especially now that their armed forces are already severely weakened.
In a conventional way no. Preemptive Strikes have almost always been the downfall of those who initiate it. Russia is far from being a sitting duck militarily. Napoleon found that out, so did Germany in WW2. Anyone who has attacked Russia so far has failed eventually, in most cases leading to their downfall.
While now people in Russia are more and more showing discontent with Putin’s war of aggression, this would revert to a surge of patriotism and a wall behind and before him the moment someone attacks the “rodina” from outside. Again, what the Russians are capable of when attacked has been proven many times.
The only way things could get back to half ways normal would be if the current “strong man” and his whole group of falcons would get replaced internally by people who put more value on the economic growth of Russia rather than it’s military or territorial growth. We’ve been there before to an extent, only that Putin has anihilated all those efforts of 20 years within less than one month with his ruthless action.
If Russia wants to win back it’s former territory, the much more effective way of doing that would be to attract them economically. To offer them an alliance which counterweighs the EU or the Asian markets and as a whole could be taken seriously as a player in the economic sector. That however requires a complete change of doctrine, away from communist thought towards market economy and savvy in terms of how to deal with it. China has been doing this quite effectively, considering they are still a communist government but at the same time a pretty thriving economy.
Peter wrote:
Russia will always melt down unless there is one strong man totally in charge.
Probably. Fact is, before Putin threw away his real chance to be a member of the world marketplace, Russians have had their taste of market economy and the freedoms which came with it, and they liked it just fine. Getting back into that would be a huge carrot stick for the population and an incentive of getting rid of the politicians which drive them into misery right now. Yes, it also was a “strong man” regime, but one which brought Russia much more prosperity than what they do now.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The intention was not to shoot down an airliner and one of the convicted persons is a Ukrainian citizen who was commanding a unit of pro-russian separatists in Donbass.
I can’t find it back but at the time there was a recording circulating of the troops who found the airliner calling back to their commanders in horror and the commander replying that the “damn Cossaks” got them into severe trouble now. It was deemed fake at the time, but was probably genuine.
What I never understood and thought to be quite reckless was the fact that this airspace was still open for overflight, given that there had been shootdowns up to 25k ft. It was said at the time, it was done not to loose overflight charges. If so and the risk was accepted, then this would also be a question to be raised, at least considering how to deal with similar situations in the future.
This has to be seen to be believed. The life of incredible privilege of the ruling class, versus the rest of the country, yet they complain that their Tesla won’t start. Even here in the West you need to be highly privileged to own a Tesla.
More interesting is that this is a nationwide TV channel.
Peter wrote:
Even here in the West you need to be highly privileged to own a Tesla.
Seeing what Tesla’s brain is up to anyone owning a Tesla should strongly consider if it is a privilege or not.
I am a big believer in “never say never” but in the case of Tesla it is a NEVER for me.
Peter wrote:
This has to be seen to be believed.
Rich “journalist” (not sure what he is, that’s what the title says) who wants his luxuries back railing at “old general” who wants solidarity and sacrifices like in the old times…
Some of the dialogue (if one can call it that) could be right out of a Monty Python sketch…
Old General: “I have hearing aids”
Journalist: “Not my fault if they are also broken”
Old General: “They are made in Russia! I only hear what is needed!”
