Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    But as I explained, assuming they didn't know the separatists had such advanced AA capabilities, they assumptions were reasonable. To put it into one line: They didn't expect ANY AA missiles at that altitude, therefore it is safe. I would assume Eurocontrol were unaware, it was just a tragic accident that was near impossible to forseee.
    Well seeing it turns Ukraine have known about the BUK system under separatist's control...

    Also it is kind of Eurocontrols job to state if an airspace is safe or not, it's what it is there for.

    If your going to blame anyone blame those two.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You also acknowledge that the Americans do posses orbiting hardware with the necessary capabilities, yes?
    You do realise using orbiting satellites with lenses powerful enough to even see an object like a Buk launcher from ~1000 miles up would be like looking for a needle in a hay stack? And that's assuming that the rebels didn't try to hide the launcher, which they almost certainly would have.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Well seeing it turns Ukraine have known about the BUK system under separatist's control...

    Also it is kind of Eurocontrols job to state if an airspace is safe or not, it's what it is there for.

    If your going to blame anyone blame those two.
    I blame them over the airline, they both have their portion of the blame, as do the people who actually did it, since they either shot down a civilian aircraft on purpose, or they didn't verify the target, whether that be negligence or just not knowing how to do it. Yes, MA could have gone around, and in hindsight they should have, but the airlines should be able to trust the higher analysts, especially since their job is to do perform the analysis properly.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It's absolutely absurd to call this an 'accident' as RT and their fellow travellers have now switched to doing. There's nothing remotely accidental about shooting down a civil passenger jet flying at 33,000 ft with a SAM missile.

    Another key point developing is that (as I speculated earlier on in the thread and was rubbished for it) it is looking increasingly likely that it had to be an expert team staffing the BUK, undoubtedly this was a Russian military unit. The BUK has now been returned to Russia for dismantling and destruction/burial.

    It's so hard to see why this was anything but an act of war by the Russian state against the rest of the world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's absolutely absurd to call this an 'accident' as RT and their fellow travellers have now switched to doing. There's nothing remotely accidental about shooting down a civil passenger jet flying at 33,000 ft with a SAM missile.

    Another key point developing is that (as I speculated earlier on in the thread and was rubbished for it) it is looking increasingly likely that it had to be an expert team staffing the BUK, undoubtedly this was a Russian military unit. The BUK has now been returned to Russia for dismantling and destruction/burial.

    It's so hard to see why this was anything but an act of war by the Russian state against the rest of the world.
    It was an accident. Unless they knew they were shooting at a civilian jet (which they didn't), it was by definition an accident.

    And it didn't have to be a specialist team, stop chatting ****.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    "Pro-Russia separatists who are believed to have used the “Buk” antiaircraft missile system to shoot down a Malaysian airliner in eastern Ukraine probably needed Russian assistance to operate it, senior U.S. officials said Friday.The Russian-designed missile system, also known as an SA-11, “is a sophisticated piece of technology, and it strains credulity to think that it could be used by separatists without at least some measure of Russian support and technical assistance,“ Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters at the Pentagon.

    Whether Russian military personnel were involved, either in training Ukrainian militants or actually operating the system, is emerging as a key question for U.S. intelligence agencies and for crash investigators, the officials said. Russia has blamed the Ukrainian government for the crash ."

    http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/...718-story.html
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    "Pro-Russia separatists who are believed to have used the “Buk” antiaircraft missile system to shoot down a Malaysian airliner in eastern Ukraine probably needed Russian assistance to operate it, senior U.S. officials said Friday.The Russian-designed missile system, also known as an SA-11, “is a sophisticated piece of technology, and it strains credulity to think that it could be used by separatists without at least some measure of Russian support and technical assistance,“ Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters at the Pentagon.

    Whether Russian military personnel were involved, either in training Ukrainian militants or actually operating the system, is emerging as a key question for U.S. intelligence agencies and for crash investigators, the officials said. Russia has blamed the Ukrainian government for the crash ."

    http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/...718-story.html
    Maybe you shouldn't be listening to the Americans and actually making a judgement for yourself then.

    For example there are 14 nations that currently use of the BUK system. 5 are using retro fitted systems and have no specific training in how to use it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LightBlueSoldier)
    Maybe you shouldn't be listening to the Americans and actually making a judgement for yourself then.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    CCTV, Euronews and Al Jazeera have all carried reports discussing the exact same point. It would appear that outside the deluded bubble of Russia TV propaganda, most people are curious about exactly how a bunch of brainless swaggering fascist thugs in combat fatigues could take possession of sophisticated weaponry like this without training or the full assistance of a Russian field military unit. The latter is the obviously plausible scenario. The fact that this Russian unit also appears to be utterly incompetent is all par for the course.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    CCTV, Euronews and Al Jazeera have all carried reports discussing the exact same point. It would appear that outside the deluded bubble of Russia TV propaganda, most people are curious about exactly how a bunch of brainless swaggering fascist thugs in combat fatigues could take possession of sophisticated weaponry like this without training or the full assistance of a Russian field military unit. The latter is the obviously plausible scenario. The fact that this Russian unit also appears to be utterly incompetent is all par for the course.
    If you look up the buk specifications, it seems that any intelligent person could operate this system. It's only sophisticated in terms of its capabilities. This is not surprising when you consider that the weapon was designed in the context of a Soviet Union that did not put huge importance on technical capabilities in its weapon operators. A lot of other soviet era weaponry is also very simple to use which it one reason that it has become so prevalent in war zones around the world.

    I think you will also find that a lot of the rebels do have military backgrounds.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LightBlueSoldier)
    If you look up the buk specifications, it seems that any intelligent person could operate this system. It's only sophisticated in terms of its capabilities. This is not surprising when you consider that the weapon was designed in the context of a Soviet Union that did not put huge importance on technical capabilities in its weapon operators. A lot of other soviet era weaponry is also very simple to use which it one reason that it has become so prevalent in war zones around the world.

    I think you will also find that a lot of the rebels do have military backgrounds.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'll think I will trust the Rear Admiral over you. Nothing personal.

    The fact that the Russians have recovered the BUK vehicle demonstrates how connected they are to the rebels/terrorists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I'll think I will trust the Rear Admiral over you. Nothing personal.

    The fact that the Russians have recovered the BUK vehicle demonstrates how connected they are to the rebels/terrorists.
    If I put up a Russian military figure giving his opinion on it would you believe him? No. So why do you believe an American military figure on this? Just go look it up. The buk system is really simple. It's basically point and shoot.

    The buk came from the Ukrainians though. The Russians did not supply the weaponry so why would they supply a team? Total disconnect in logic there.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    Yes it is. I was born in the UK not the Ukraine. Chance is incredibly important. If it rains when I attack and I hadn't anticipated it because it rarely rains, well that's chance in war. If a plane is shot down and happens to be a commercial airline instead of a military aircraft, well guess what that's chance.
    Missed the point my friend...I've explained this to you're counterpart JD.

    The entire universe is essentially a bunch of chemical reactions, probability, equations etc. However it is not seen that way outside of a scientific view point simply because it is too complex. Too much depends on too many factors. Hence it cannot be compared to a simple probability game such as tossing a coin or rolling a die.

    The theory is the same = science
    The practicality is not = life

    We were not discussing the probability of whether or not the plane could have been a military target or not, hence...GUESS WHAT...you can go back and read the entire pointless conversation because you've caught the end of it and come in and shot your mouth off trying to prove points that weren't even in question.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LightBlueSoldier)
    If I put up a Russian military figure giving his opinion on it would you believe him? No. So why do you believe an American military figure on this? Just go look it up. The buk system is really simple. It's basically point and shoot.

    The buk came from the Ukrainians though. The Russians did not supply the weaponry so why would they supply a team? Total disconnect in logic there.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are correct, soviet technology was made to be easily mastered by anyone who has two brain cells, this is because the soviet military system was based on conscription, men were made to serve for 2 years so they needed to be trained quickly and easily in using weapons. Soviet technology is simple but effective.
    • Study Helper
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous263)
    You are correct, soviet technology was made to be easily mastered by anyone who has two brain cells, this is because the soviet military system was based on conscription, men were made to serve for 2 years so they needed to be trained quickly and easily in using weapons. Soviet technology is simple but effective.
    And highly prone to operator error - in this case I would suggest discriminating primary radar scope signatures and tracks between different aircraft types, is not something a rookie radar operator would be able to achieve or even understand given it's significance.

    For this reason alone, it logically fits rebel operators with minimal training and not an experienced Russian crew - giving plausible deniability for the Russians.

    The Buk system is designed to be operated autonomously, (it also has the capability to be integrated into a command and control area management system) in this case I would also suggest the operators were not in communication with Kiev ATC's (or anyone else for that matter) and operating in isolation for obvious reasons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uberteknik)
    And highly prone to operator error - in this case I would suggest discriminating primary radar scope signatures and tracks between different aircraft types, is not something a rookie radar operator would be able to achieve or even understand given it's significance.

    For this reason alone, it logically fits rebel operators with minimal training and not an experienced Russian crew - giving plausible deniability for the Russians.

    The Buk system is designed to be operated autonomously, (it also has the capability to be integrated into a command and control area management system) in this case I would also suggest the operators were not in communication with Kiev ATC's (or anyone else for that matter) and operating in isolation for obvious reasons.
    How about Kievs national guard? They're made up of volunteers as well.
    Could they have made a mistake?
    I'm leaning towards thinking that the rebels did do it by accident but we still haven't got enough information to make a judgement and we may never know.
    The Russians have the most to lose from this situation so i rule out the possibility that they did it on purpose.
    Kiev on the other hand has a lot to gain from this tragedy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's absolutely absurd to call this an 'accident' as RT and their fellow travellers have now switched to doing. There's nothing remotely accidental about shooting down a civil passenger jet flying at 33,000 ft with a SAM missile.

    Another key point developing is that (as I speculated earlier on in the thread and was rubbished for it) it is looking increasingly likely that it had to be an expert team staffing the BUK, undoubtedly this was a Russian military unit. The BUK has now been returned to Russia for dismantling and destruction/burial.

    It's so hard to see why this was anything but an act of war by the Russian state against the rest of the world.
    Where the hell are you getting this information from? This isn't the cold war, Russia aren't automatically the bad guys just because they are on tv.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Ok. I meant who are the official body.

    Ukraine does not have the military capacity to take back Crimea because they would have to fight the Russians
    .
    That was precisely my point as for the international body have you not been following the news? http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...r-russia-grows

    "Borodai said that the Donetsk People's Republic was expecting a team of 81 international experts, including 20 Malaysians specialists, who would "probably arrive tomorrow evening". The rebel leader said he did not know why the international community had not responded quicker to the incident. "I cannot understand why the experts cannot come here immediately, we are not an island, it should be easy for them to come here," he told press."
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LightBlueSoldier)
    Iso why would they supply a team? Total disconnect in logic there.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You seem to inhabit a reality-free zone.

    The facts are that Russian soldiers and FSB operatives have been directly involved in subversion in Ukraine since the get-go. There have been numerous cases of Russian soldiers being identified operating there and many actions have been co-ordinated directly from Moscow. There is no reason to think that the use of SAM missiles would be any different.

    In fact, it's more logical to believe that a Russian team would be involved in staffing the launcher. Why would Moscow risk sending hi-tech weapons systems across to the rebels without proper supervision? Much more sensible to send them in with military or deniable pseudo-civilian-but-in-fact-military units.

    I suspect this is a classic case of incompetent Russian soldiers performing callous and gung-ho acts. Maybe they were drunk at the time - drunkenness remains an endemic problem throughout the Russian armed forces, partly as a side effect of the brutalising experiences young soldiers go through their during their 'training'.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DErasmus)
    Where the hell are you getting this information from? This isn't the cold war, Russia aren't automatically the bad guys just because they are on tv.
    You are as capable of using Google as I am. I didn't say they are the bad guys because RT is biased, I am putting forwards plausible hypotheses based on known past conduct of the Russian armed forces since the fall of the Soviet Union and given the ways in which the Putin oligarchy behaves. A gangster state remains a gangster state, no matter how much oil and gas they sell, or how much they invest in a compliant media machine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You are as capable of using Google as I am. I didn't say they are the bad guys because RT is biased, I am putting forwards plausible hypotheses based on known past conduct of the Russian armed forces since the fall of the Soviet Union and given the ways in which the Putin oligarchy behaves. A gangster state remains a gangster state, no matter how much oil and gas they sell, or how much they invest in a compliant media machine.
    Have you considered that the information you read is just as biased as RT? I guess you don't read the Daily Mail which is a start but look at the usual suspects, good old John Kerry being utterly incompetent and slow. I appreciate you putting forward a hypothesis, they are needed, but it looked like you were claiming it as fact.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.