Greg that is my point, I don't have a problem asserting US dominance. However we never shot a Russian aircraft down. Even currently they conduct aggressive maneuvers against us and we don't do anything. We do collide, but no one actively tries to kill us.

Brain you are saying you know they have bad intentions. However that is not proven. If you were rushed on the street with by two gang bangers you would not be justified drawing and killing them just because they scared you. They would have to place you in fear of your life and you were not able to do anything but defend yourself. That didn't appear to be the case here.

Brain if you were carrying at a movie theater and a man carrying a rifle appeared there isn't anything you could do until he made a hostile movement. While it would be a tense moment I am sure, until he committed some kind of hostile action you would be the one in trouble as it isn't illegal to carry a weapon.

I do know who the Libyans were. But it would seem to me that you couldn't do anything other than intercept and inspect legally. Though I will admit that 2 less Libyan Mig 23's is probably a good thing. Should they have been able to shoot at the Tomcats first? I mean we were very aggressive in an area they claimed as their territory.

I wouldn't have wanted this played out any other way by the way. Just curious as to the legality of it.

You can't just shoot someone because you want to, or you are scared.....you have to follow the rules. Not saying they weren't following the rules. I didn't know what the rules were. Plenty of fighters (both Russian and US...and now chinese I guess) make a routine habit out of pumping their chest out and intercepting aircraft. Should they be shot down? Like I said, it is a dangerous fun game, till someone loses an eye..............or an aircraft.
History dictates that the Libs are nuts, throw North Korea in that mix also. Russians do it all the time and so do we.

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/07 ... -line.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... e-Day.html

Greg that is my point, I don't have a problem asserting US dominance. However we never shot a Russian aircraft down. Even currently they conduct aggressive maneuvers against us and we don't do anything. We do collide, but no one actively tries to kill us.

Brain you are saying you know they have bad intentions. However that is not proven. If you were rushed on the street with by two gang bangers you would not be justified drawing and killing them just because they scared you. They would have to place you in fear of your life and you were not able to do anything but defend yourself. That didn't appear to be the case here.

Brain if you were carrying at a movie theater and a man carrying a rifle appeared there isn't anything you could do until he made a hostile movement. While it would be a tense moment I am sure, until he committed some kind of hostile action you would be the one in trouble as it isn't illegal to carry a weapon.

I do know who the Libyans were. But it would seem to me that you couldn't do anything other than intercept and inspect legally. Though I will admit that 2 less Libyan Mig 23's is probably a good thing. Should they have been able to shoot at the Tomcats first? I mean we were very aggressive in an area they claimed as their territory.

I wouldn't have wanted this played out any other way by the way. Just curious as to the legality of it.

How to prove it?
Like I said John - what do you do - wait until they shoot first?
Their violent intentions were already on display.


OK - let's put some of the supposed details in this scenario to try and make a comparison.
If those gang members had been saying for the last week that anyone caught on a public street would be summarily executed.
If those same gang bangers had in recent weeks actually committed acts of violence against your family members.
If those gang bangers were armed, with weapons leveled at you, just how much more action do you need to see to be threatened?


There had already been threats and shots fired I believe in past encounters depending on whether we are discussing the 1981 or the 1989 events (not to forget about Operation El Dorado Canyon!). Dangerous situation to trying to be intercepting and inspecting under those conditions.


For a person questioning the legality of actions IAW international law - you seem to be disregarding clearly established international law with this statement.

As for the question to the difference between the Russian and the Libyans.....I gave you my view in the answer to your PM; but it follows what Greg alludes to in my opinion.....
the players involved.

Like Greg believes too....I think we are probably more in agreement in this than we are in disagreement; but the responsibility is heavy on those commanders minds when operating in such an environment. God bless them.

Guys, guys! I'm pretty sure I recall that event and those leading up. Libya had declared the Gulf of Sidra a "Zone of Death" or some similarly dramatic BS. Khadaffi/Ghadaffi effectively said "If you cross this line in the sand I'm gonna blow your asses away". The line actually happened to be in international waters. This was analogous to the last time we had to crush the Libyans over piracy in the same waters in the early 19th Century.

The Task Force was ordered to enter said international waters and enforce the US' rights to Freedom of Navigation under international law (Sound familiar?). The Libyan pilots responded aggressively in spite of clear warnings on Guard from the E2C that was controlling the battlespace. When someone is told "I'm gonna kick your ass if you cross this line", and that line is on a public right of way and you have the ability to blow his ass away if he tries, and he balls his fist and comes at you, you blow his ass away.

End of story. Shed no tears for the pilots (they probably got medals) or their boss who's now cavorting with his 70 virgins.

Actually we shot down dozens of their aircraft during the Cold War and they shot down a similar number of our aircraft. Sometimes the aircraft (theirs and ours) were shot down because the downed aircraft had penetrated sovereign airspace; more often, the shootdowns occurred in international waters. Don't confuse the international law of armed conflict with US civil and criminal law. Nations can and do commit acts that would carry a harsh prison sentence if an individual committed a corresponding act against another individual in the US. During my time on active duty, I saw the peacetime ROE swing from very aggressive to ridiculously restrictive depending on who we were facing and the state of affairs at the moment. However, in all cases that I am aware of, those ROE were all in accordance with international law. There may or may not have been anything "fair" about the Libyan shootdown but it was legal under international law and was, IMHO, exactly the action we needed to take.

I was traveling in Italy then. Distinctly remember being asked what the U.S.A. will do about "the Libyans that attacked our carrier, killing US servicemen" Say what??? Was in all the local papers. Was met by US Embassy Guards at Milan airport upon departure. They returned my rental car and escorted us thru the terminal. Armed to the teeth. .

Picked up US versions of newspapers, and they reported only the diplomatic hot air.
Forever soiled my trust in "the press", anywhere.