It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by peck420
I wonder why the Russian never seem to make a stink when any NATO (mostly US or Canadian) fighter aircraft come significantly closer than 16 km to them...military flights and some non-military flights?
Are they more secure in their understanding of international law, .
As a consequence of the rapid growth of Soviet maritime power during the 1960s, hazardous incidents at sea and in the air became a regular part of the Cold War. Eventually, both Washington and Moscow came to recognize the importance of an agreement limiting this perilous set of interactions, resulting in the Incidents at Sea Agreement that was signed in May 1972. The set of rules and procedures agreed upon helped to calm tensions in subsequent crises and provides ample lessons for placing reasonable limits on other tense maritime rivalries.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by superman2012
Because the way they claim to have spoofed it, it thought it was at home, and landed on an airstrip when it didn't. A number of quiet reports have all stated that there was a mechanical problem with the aircraft. It crash landed in the desert, where the Iranians were able to recover it. The damage is consistent with a crash landing, and the aircraft that was displayed by the Iranians as the recovered RQ-170 has a number of very big oddities (such as no wheel wells, no landing gear door, etc.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel
The behind the scenes comments I've heard and heard about all agree there was a problem with the aircraft before it went down.
It's entirely possible that a self destruct was actually removed sometime in the last few years.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by mbkennel
It's possible they were, but at least two of them (not mine) apparently had a history of giving very reliable information that they probably shouldn't have, and could have gotten into trouble for (nothing of the black sort damnit, but confirmations of other sources). With the number, and the reliability of sources involved, I think that they were on the up and up.
Zaphod58
Two hypotheticals for anyone to answer.
1. An obvious military aircraft is flying 70-100 miles off your coast, in obvious international airspace. It had been there a few days, but never entered your airspace. Is it ok to interfere with it?
2. At least one, possibly multiple military aircraft flying along probing your defenses, eavesdropping on radio communications, getting radar frequencies, monitoring responses (including deliberately provoking responses). All this takes place in international airspace. Again, ok for this to happen?