Russian jets keep buzzing U.S. ships and planes

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,291
Under President Trump a late night Twitter threat would go out to Putin and we would be in a nuclear standoff with them within a week.

Two separate close encounters between the Russian and U.S. militaries in recent days have left many wondering if future incidents could result in an armed clash.

Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis told reporters Monday, "There have been repeated incidents over the past year where Russian aircraft have come close enough to other air and sea traffic to raise serious safety concerns."
"Unsafe and unprofessional actions by a single pilot have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions between the two countries," he added.
After two Russian fighter jets flew within 30 feet of the USS Donald Cook last Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that the Russian action could have resulted in the jets being shot down.
Source: CNN
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,839
Midlife, Midwest
Obama should tell them there is a red line
The Russians already know there is a red line. They deliberately crossed it. But it was a red line. Not an invitation to go to war with Russia.

This incident happened in the Baltic Sea; about 70 miles from Kaliningrad; which is the capital of the little Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. And the Russians are kind of pissed because both Poland and Lithuania are now friends with the US. And the Russians are also kind of pissed at the US Navy vessel in question, the USS Donald Cook; which last year spent a few months cruising around the Black Sea (on the other end of Europe) in support of Romania; Bulgaria; and Ukraine - which also are now buddies with the US, after being for decades in the Soviet orbit.

The Russians don't want to spark a war with the US. They don't want the US to shoot down their planes. They just want to make it uncomfortable for US navy sailors. The US could lodge a protest with the UN, since such behavior violates the terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; but since we have failed to ratify that Treaty (thanks Republicans!) we don't have legal standing to do so. So its up to our State Department to send nasty notes to their opposite numbers in Moscow.

So we are stuck with this choice: Either we get into a shooting war with Russia. Or we accept the fact that if we sail Naval vessels near odd bits of Russia (China; North Korea, Cuba; etc.) there is a possibility they might fly a plane or helicopter low overhead.

The problem comes down to this: The captain of a US Navy ship has the obligation (not just the right) to defend his vessel. His orders demand he do that. But he cannot set standing orders to shoot down any aircraft that comes close his ship, because we aren't at war. And because bad things have happened, and will happen again, when military officers start shooting down unidentified aircraft during peacetime. The US President, as Commander in Chief, could order the Navy to change their policy to shoot down any unidentified aircraft that entered a specified radius. But that would probably count as a War Crime. It would inevitably end up with a very serious international incident. Which would be bad if we (deliberately) shot down a Russian fighter plane. It would be worse if we shot down a civilian airliner.
 

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,291
Ah I remember the good 'ol cold war sabre rattling back in the 80's I guess it's so retro it's popular again.
Reagan handled that pretty well and cooler heads prevailed. Basically the opposite of what would happen with a president Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raid

thewitt

macrumors 68020
Sep 13, 2011
2,102
1,518
...since such behavior violates the terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; but since we have failed to ratify that Treaty (thanks Republicans!)
You're welcome.

Since that treaty would have moved billions of dollars worth of oil and mineral rights in US Territorial waters into the hands of an international committee for license and distribution, the treaty is not in our best interest.

The world socialist economy is not anything any American should support.

The US has voluntarily accepted all other aspects of the treaty however, and continues to do so.

Obama should tell them there is a red line
Though he would never do it, we should just start buzzing the Russians at every opportunity.

IDGAS why they are buzzing our ships.

I hope our ships are at least locking radar tracking on these guys so they wet their flight suits on the way by.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,291
Though he would never do it, we should just start buzzing the Russians at every opportunity.

IDGAS why they are buzzing our ships.

I hope our ships are at least locking radar tracking on these guys so they wet their flight suits on the way by.
The planes were unarmed. I would hope we wouldn't act unless there's a real threat, there's just no need to.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
The Russians already know there is a red line. They deliberately crossed it. But it was a red line. Not an invitation to go to war with Russia.

This incident happened in the Baltic Sea; about 70 miles from Kaliningrad; which is the capital of the little Russian enclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. And the Russians are kind of pissed because both Poland and Lithuania are now friends with the US. And the Russians are also kind of pissed at the US Navy vessel in question, the USS Donald Cook; which last year spent a few months cruising around the Black Sea (on the other end of Europe) in support of Romania; Bulgaria; and Ukraine - which also are now buddies with the US, after being for decades in the Soviet orbit.

The Russians don't want to spark a war with the US. They don't want the US to shoot down their planes. They just want to make it uncomfortable for US navy sailors. The US could lodge a protest with the UN, since such behavior violates the terms of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; but since we have failed to ratify that Treaty (thanks Republicans!) we don't have legal standing to do so. So its up to our State Department to send nasty notes to their opposite numbers in Moscow.

So we are stuck with this choice: Either we get into a shooting war with Russia. Or we accept the fact that if we sail Naval vessels near odd bits of Russia (China; North Korea, Cuba; etc.) there is a possibility they might fly a plane or helicopter low overhead.

The problem comes down to this: The captain of a US Navy ship has the obligation (not just the right) to defend his vessel. His orders demand he do that. But he cannot set standing orders to shoot down any aircraft that comes close his ship, because we aren't at war. And because bad things have happened, and will happen again, when military officers start shooting down unidentified aircraft during peacetime. The US President, as Commander in Chief, could order the Navy to change their policy to shoot down any unidentified aircraft that entered a specified radius. But that would probably count as a War Crime. It would inevitably end up with a very serious international incident. Which would be bad if we (deliberately) shot down a Russian fighter plane. It would be worse if we shot down a civilian airliner.
Damnit VR, do you have to be so damn reasonable in looking at the bigger picture here? We came here for a hyper-masculine Russia bashing and you have to bring in this drivel? :mad:
 

giantfan1224

macrumors 6502a
Mar 9, 2012
869
1,093
It would inevitably end up with a very serious international incident. Which would be bad if we (deliberately) shot down a Russian fighter plane. It would be worse if we shot down a civilian airliner.
Yet not that bad since Russia got away with it. ;)
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,839
Midlife, Midwest
Since that treaty would have moved billions of dollars worth of oil and mineral rights in US Territorial waters into the hands of an international committee for license and distribution, the treaty is not in our best interest.


You seriously do not know what you are talking about.

The Treaty would give legal standing to US claims on resources out to the 200-mile limit. Which is why both the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute testified in favor its passage. So did environmental groups and the professional heads of every US military service.

A broad range of U.S. business interests back the Law of the Sea Treaty, including major oil, fishing, shipping, and telecommunications companies. One of the major features of the treaty is that it gives a state exclusive control over natural resources and economic activities within a 200-nautical mile zone extending from its shoreline. This “Exclusive Economic Zone” (EEZ), as it is aptly termed, would provide clear legal rights to U.S. companies to explore and exploit resources in the largest EEZ in the world, containing 3.4 million square miles of ocean. For this reason, the President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, unequivocally supported ratification of the treaty, stating that it would provide “American companies the legal certainty and stability they need to hire and invest.”
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010

thewap

macrumors 6502a
Jun 19, 2012
558
1,346
You're welcome.

Since that treaty would have moved billions of dollars worth of oil and mineral rights in US Territorial waters into the hands of an international committee for license and distribution, the treaty is not in our best interest.

The world socialist economy is not anything any American should support.

The US has voluntarily accepted all other aspects of the treaty however, and continues to do so.

More NWO drivel coming from the UN under the auspices of trade and "environment concerns" they treaty global domination by international corporations and banks. Much like the Trans Pacific Partnership deal they are trying to shove down our throats (congress) that would give the same groups power over our sovereignty.
 

haxrnick

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2011
530
1,937
Seattle
The planes were unarmed. I would hope we wouldn't act unless there's a real threat, there's just no need to.
I guess you and I have different views on what a threat is. Regardless of being unarmed, a military jet coming within 30 feet of me isn't something I'm sure many people are comfortable with.
 

lostngone

macrumors 65816
Aug 11, 2003
1,340
2,835
Anchorage
Would it be too provocative if they just let the CIWS radar(s) paint the incoming target? I would imagine it would at least scare the pilot to see a Phalanx tracking him as he flew by.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hulugu

ericgtr12

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 19, 2015
1,237
7,291
I guess you and I have different views on what a threat is. Regardless of being unarmed, a military jet coming within 30 feet of me isn't something I'm sure many people are comfortable with.
We agree there, I guess the question is what's an acceptable reaction short of shooting one down. Not that they didn't ask for that even but we have to wonder if the ship knew it was safe and acted accordingly. Of course one of those pilots almost went kamikaze so who's to say.