Do pilots have permission to fire on these objects?
Because you might be wrong, end up killing someone, and causing a massive scandal and/or international incident.Why not at least try to shoot down unindentified, and presumably unmanned, aircraft in restricted US airspace if they're suspected of spying, deemed to be a potential threat, or thought to be a hazard to airmen? They're over the water. The (Chinese/Russian) owner isn't going to complain. There's no risk to life or limb from doing so, etc.
External Quote:Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by an SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser of the United States Navy. The aircraft, an Airbus A300, was destroyed and all 290 people on board were killed. The jet was hit while flying over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, along the flight's usual route, shortly after departing Bandar Abbas International Airport, the flight's stopover location.
Because you might be wrong, end up killing someone, and causing a massive scandal and/or international incident.
Extreme, but highly relevant example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
External Quote:Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by an SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser of the United States Navy. The aircraft, an Airbus A300, was destroyed and all 290 people on board were killed. The jet was hit while flying over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, along the flight's usual route, shortly after departing Bandar Abbas International Airport, the flight's stopover location.
External Quote:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17)[a] was a scheduled passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur that was shot down on 17 July 2014 while flying over eastern Ukraine. All 283 passengers and 15 crew were killed.[3] The Ukrainian Air Force had suffered losses from increasingly sophisticated air defence weaponry. Immediately after contact with the aircraft was lost, the rebel militia in Donetsk claimed to have shot down a Ukrainian An-26 military transport airplane.[7]
Because you might be wrong, end up killing someone, and causing a massive scandal and/or international incident.
Extreme, but highly relevant example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
External Quote:Iran Air Flight 655 was a scheduled passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai via Bandar Abbas that was shot down on 3 July 1988 by an SM-2MR surface-to-air missile fired from USS Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser of the United States Navy. The aircraft, an Airbus A300, was destroyed and all 290 people on board were killed. The jet was hit while flying over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, along the flight's usual route, shortly after departing Bandar Abbas International Airport, the flight's stopover location.
To talk about RoE, you'd have to admit they are more than birds/baloons. No RoE against a baloon, and I'm preety sure it's hard to misidentify a bird/baloon with an actual enemy. Not to mention an A/A missle is more than 100k a piece, so you gotta be sure it's an enemy you're looking at. If anyone has an example of an A/A missle being shot at a bird or a baloon, I'm gonna eat my words.What are the Rules of Engagement for UAPs encroaching/spying on our military operations? Do pilots have permission to fire on these objects? The results would tell us whether or not they are intelligently controlled.
What are the Rules of Engagement for UAPs encroaching/spying on our military operations? Do pilots have permission to fire on these objects? The results would tell us whether or not they are intelligently controlled.
1 ROE should not delineate specific tactics, should not cover restrictions on specific system operations, should not cover safety-related restrictions, should not set forth service doctrine, tactics or procedures. Frequently these matters are covered in documents called ROE.
2 ROE should never be "rudder orders," and certainly should never substitute for a strategy governing the use of deployed forces, in a peacetime crisis or in wartime.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44642842.pdfPeacetime ROE generally limit military actions, including the use of force, to defensive responses to hostile acts or demonstrations of hostile intent in situations short of armed conflict.
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law1_final.pdfYou must always clearly distinguish between combatants and civilians or the civilian population as such. ... Similarly, you must always distinguish between military objectives which can be attacked and civilian objects which must be respected. The word "object" covers all kinds of objects, whether public or private, fixed or portable.
Yet these were rare events where the US military didn't hand personnel over for punishment because they handled the punishment themselves. If host countries wanted to charge US service members, they should not have agreed to the provisions in NATO that left jurisdiction in US hands.That said, clearly they're not shooting them down (or not admitting that they are), but I also don't accept it's because they scared of scandals or that they've told their pilots to not be reckless. This is the American military-industrial complex we're talking about! They'll happily let their pilots fly under Italian ski lifts, kill dozens of people, yet accept no culpability, or let them drive on the wrong side of the road in England and kill people, yet refuse extradition requests.
ROE and what you can call a 'threat' is generally vague and situation based instead of set in stone:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44642842.pdf
Rare? I'd have to see the data tbh. But what I do see is a pattern of a hyperpower putting itself and its men above the law because it can. All this is really off point, and this is the last I'll post about it, but the cable car killers were, quelle surprise, found not guilty, and you and I both know the pilot and navigator were never truly punished (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash), not even when subsequently found guilty for destroying evidence. Moreover, the Harry Dunn case is ongoing, but it looks, at most, as if the driver might get house arrest for a few months, if that. Maybe WFH will be deemed a 'cruel and unusual punishment' for well-connected spooks and she can appeal that as well.Yet these were rare events where the US military didn't hand personnel over for punishment because they handled the punishment themselves.
With all due respect, no one ever said it did.Nevertheless, "there have been occasional events where irresponsible action by members of the US military resulted in civilian death" does not mean that there's carte blanche weapons free on all targets at all times.
I hate to think shooting down an airliner is what it's going to take for people to get off this embarrassing "alien visitation" bandwagon.If the UAP/UFO object in Corbel's triangle video had been shot at by the Navy, I'd imagine it would be listed here alongside the Iran Air and Malaysian Airline events.
You've lost me. Why would not knowing exactly what something was preclude you from firing at it? The pilots known damn well there's no one on board these things and there's no danger to anyone from engaging one.There's an inherent paradox here. You don't know what it is, so you can't fire on it to figure out what it is, because you don't know what it is.
Because if you don't know what it is you might have just fired on a civilian airliner because your radar was glitching out and now 300 people are dead and the NCIS can call you up and go turns out it wasnt aliens as they pick through the wreckage of children's holiday luggage.You've lost me. Why would not knowing exactly what something was preclude you from firing at it?
Is anyone actually reading what I write?Because if you don't know what it is you might have just fired on a civilian airliner because your radar was glitching out and now 300 people are dead and the NCIS can call you up and go turns out it wasnt aliens as they pick through the wreckage of children's holiday luggage.
Is anyone actually reading what I write?
As previously mentioned, I'm talking exclusively about the balloon-style UAPs the airmen can see with their naked eyes literally feet from their aircraft, not radar targets hundreds of miles away a la the USS Vincennes.
Those balloons were seen really close to a popular resort beach canon fire would be a real danger to civilian boats or even people on the beach and loosing off a missile would be worse.
It's possible, though the rules of using military weapons of war in US airspace must be pretty tight, I'd imagine squeezing off some canon fire a few miles out from Virginia beach might have you doing paperwork for a long old time.35,000 feet up according to The Debrief... and I don't know how many miles out over the water. Not my idea of close, especially if shooting ocean-wards.
Anyway, I think the greater point I'm trying to make is being missed here, namely that, on the balance of probabilities, they're holding fire not because of fear of hitting little Billy Bob vacationing on Virginia Beach, or shooting down a Virgin Atlantic charter by mistake, but simply because this whole narrative is contradictory nonsense designed for an ulterior purpose. To the military, these aren't really UAPs and they're not really a threat, hence there's no need to shoot.
Why not start with taking some HD video?As previously mentioned, I'm talking exclusively about the balloon-style UAPs the airmen can see with their naked eyes literally feet from their aircraft
For me, they're definitely taking it. They're just not releasing it, because to do so would blow this nonsense out the water (metaphorically).Why not start with taking some HD video?
'They' being the pilots, and the other 'they' being them.They being the pilots and the other they being?
This is the really eyebrow-raising point for me. It's not like the Navy couldn't just say: "We're encountering foreign drones and we want more money/men/materiel to help us deal with them. Why concoct the underwater aliens hypothesis? How does that help their cause? Maybe someone in the Navy just has a weird sense of humour.Somebody want us to think the US Navy is encountering unusual "non human" craft in the sky/at sea... The real situation is maybe that the Navy was/is worried about foreign drones.
This is the really eyebrow-raising point for me. It's not like the Navy couldn't just say: "We're encountering foreign drones and we want more money/men/materiel to help us deal with them. Why concoct the underwater aliens hypothesis? How does that help their cause? Maybe someone in the Navy just has a weird sense of humour.
We are, but you're seemingly not grasping what we're saying: the military (despite popular concepts) doesn't open up on any old target, despite threatening behavior, violation of airspace, or what have you, without explicit orders.Is anyone actually reading what I write?
I can't help but notice a Navy/Air Force split that seems to have a glaringly obvious distinction. The Air Force doesn't encounter things because they're flying around feet dry, where no adversary can operate underneath them. The Navy, flying and sailing around in environs where any adversary can operate without much trouble, sees things. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Navy sees things the Air Force doesn't!If that much is true one has to wonder where the USAF has been in all this crap. They're tasked with securing American airspace after all.
No, no, I understand you fine, but, tbh, I think my point is being mischaracterised/misunderstood, and we've probably reached an impasse absent new data.We are, but you're seemingly not grasping what we're saying: the military (despite popular concepts) doesn't open up on any old target, despite threatening behavior, violation of airspace, or what have you, without explicit orders.
There's also a bit of a problem: if you're seeing a very small object that's naked eye distance away and still small, you're just going to obliterate it and that doesn't help you figure out what it is. Observe and report.
Agreed.The Air Force doesn't encounter things because they're flying around feet dry, where no adversary can operate underneath them. The Navy, flying and sailing around in environs where any adversary can operate without much trouble, sees things. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Navy sees things the Air Force doesn't!
SourceMany sceptics have suggested the objects caught on camera are nothing more than advanced drones. But Jeremy [Corbell] claimed state-of-the-art anti-drone technology was used in some cases of sightings and proved ineffective.
"The anti-drone technology is something that we have and is highly effective usually," he said.
"We're still looking into why it was ineffective."
The Air Force never flies over water? Color me "doubtful."The Navy, flying and sailing around in environs where any adversary can operate without much trouble, sees things. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that the Navy sees things the Air Force doesn't!
I smell a linguistic rat, too, similar to when Mick West got the military to confirm that an initial designation of UAP doesn't publicly change even when an object has been covertly identified.Source
I couldn't find a video with him stating that stuff, but he repeatedly claimed that.
But "ineffective" is a word that sounds pretty suspicious to me. He doesn't claim they shot at them, but it was ineffective. The search for wreckage after the UFO "splashed" was also "ineffective".
Exactly. An Air2Air Missile is probably pretty ineffective against a weather balloon.I smell a linguistic rat, too
Obviously not "never." Eglin and Tindall, for instance, are as close to marine environs as any naval air station. But, in terms of operations and training, the typical Air Force vehicle is inland compared to an aircraft carrier's aircraft that are at sea.The Air Force never flies over water? Color me "doubtful."