From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
To: Simon Spero <alanh@infi.net>
Message Hash: 9f7341e66c988144d70422de65c375b1a2470258d04006cc0c69592aca89a53a
Message ID: <199609020358.UAA05172@mail.pacifier.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-02 06:16:09 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:16:09 +0800
From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:16:09 +0800
To: Simon Spero <alanh@infi.net>
Subject: Re: FLT 800: From the Rumor Mill...But It Makes Sense.. (fwd)
Message-ID: <199609020358.UAA05172@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 10:15 PM 9/1/96 -0400, Simon Spero wrote:
>On Sun, 1 Sep 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:
>
>> The Aegis ship in the Gulf wzs not in an exercise. It was in a war zone.
>>
>> If my memory serves, the Iranian jetliner had its squawker turned off, or
>> broken. The officer in charge in the CIC had about ten seconds to decide
>> if he was about to be locked-on by a missle. And no real information to
>
>I think it was actually a combination of a design flaw in the user
>interface for the control system combined with a human error that led to
>the radar officer confusing the airbus with an (F4?) a hundred miles away
>that he'd previously clicked on.
Isn't there just the tiniest bit of a double-standard here? If the ship was
supposedly "justified" in firing on an airplane just because it
_could_become_ a threat, and _could_ fire a missile at any moment, then why
can't we turn this logic around and claim that an Iranian aircraft could
view an Aegis as a ship which "could become a threat" and "could fire a
missile at any moment."
Generally, I'm not sympathetic to the Iranians; far from it. But I can
smell hypocrisy a mile away and the US military's "logic" in this area is
unbelievable.
Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com
Return to September 1996
Return to “jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>”
1996-09-02 (Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:16:09 +0800) - Re: FLT 800: From the Rumor Mill…But It Makes Sense.. (fwd) - jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>