h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why is the British Ministry of Defense unnecessarily provoking the Russians? It's sad to see the spin that the BBC Worldservice puts on it as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6981541.stm

Luckily the Ruskies aren't as bloodthirsty as the Brits.

Is your bizarre take on this a clumsy broadside at what you might see as the British public's casual characterization of US activities as aggressive, provocative and imperialist? And also regular criticism of the US media jingoism?

This type of interception was standard operating procedure in the Cold War years, and now that Mr Putin has taken the Russian long range bomber fleet out of mothballs and resumed the Cold War practice of provocative flight to borders of NATO airspace it seems quite sensibly to still be standard operating procedure.

Incidentally, I noticed you did not accuse the Norwegians of being the blood thirsty savages like us Brits despite the fact they continued to monitor the flight once they had identified it.

Personally I'm quite happy to see that to NATO air defences are picking up unidentified aircraft and intercepting, identifying and monitoring them.

Russians not bloodthirsty? Wow!

Well, no more so than anyone else, anyway.

"...Russian military planes flying in airspace patrolled by Nato..."

A clue for the hard of thinking: flying a warplane into foreign airspace is aggression.

Flying a warplane into your OWN airspace IN DIRECT RESPONSE to the above is called "defence". As in "Ministry of Defence". As in "self defence".

If you look up "defensive" in the dictionary, you may find the word "aggressive" listed as an *opposite*.

Fkwit.

SoRB

Plus ça change...

http://whisky12345.googlepages.com/aircraft

This has been going on for decades, it was only the economic disaster in Russia during the 1990s that kept their aircraft on the ground - they couldn't afford to fly them!

Unecessarily provoking? Spin?

What the are you talking about... are you privy to some secret information that BBC aren't? Doubt it somehow.

Aggression?

If somebody walks into my house uninvited and I use minimum necessary force to get rid of them is that aggression? I don't think so.

Ironic as it is for me to say this, I'm going to say it anyway: think before posting.

To be fair the Russians did not fly into foreign airspace. They flew in international airspace -

'Spokesman for the Norwegian armed forces, Lt Col John Inge Oegland, told the BBC the Russian bombers flew in international airspace from the Barents Sea to the Atlantic, before turning back.'

Just a clarification. Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

OK, we've had a few people post much the same thing, i.e. "wtf?".

I think it's transparent what's going on here, so here's a suggestion:

Do not feed the troll.

SoRB

I do think that the OP is trolling slightly, and I do think that patrolling the area is the proper thing to do, and it is good to see that we are on the ball about this. That being said, implying that the bombers were flying in foreign airspace is wrong, they flew in international airspace, as did our patrol. Just what I got from the article. Until later...
BCNU - Crescent

Arnie - did you actually read the link?

Please tell me which part of this statement is aggressive:

>>An MoD spokesman said: "The re-emergence of long-range flights from Russia is something the Russians are entitled to do.

"All countries have the right to maintain or up-grade and exercise their defence capabilities.

"The motivation behind any Russian military activity is a matter for the Russian government."<<

Or is your post a really bad attempt at irony? Does this incident make you think the Russians are being unnecessarily aggresive?

"To be fair the Russians did not fly into foreign airspace. They flew in international airspace"

But also: 'They were tracked by the Norwegian aircraft until entering the Nato area for which the UK has responsibility'

Are Nato areas also international areas? I suspect the rules are rather hazy .

Hmm, not sure the first post is entirely serious, but hey. Possibly worth pointing out that this was action on behalf of NATO. The UK controls much of the the sea and airspace that the Soviets would've had to traverse to get from the north Russian coast into the Atlantic and target the east coast of the US.


I don't think the US would've been particularly happy if we'd just let through several large aircraft flying in formation towards the Atlantic, without bothering to identify them.

Oh, and just for a little additional info...


In the images I posted (see link above), there are two versions of the Tu-95 Bear...

In the top one (Taken in 1972) it's a Tu-95 D, which was often to be found in the Atlantic or Norwegian seas throughout the cold war - It's an ELINT plane, there are no bomb-bays - it's sole purpose is to gather intelligence...

In the bottom photo (Taken this month) it's a Tu-95 H, the sole purpose of which is to carry AS-15 Nuclear-tipped air-launched cruise missiles... There were eight of these aircraft flying out to a spot in the Atlantic... Now, with a range of 2000 miles, those things could hit New York from mid Atlantic, or alternatively, Gibralter from anywhere south of Iceland...
I'll stress it again, the Tu-95 H is not fitted out as an intelligence gathering aircraft, it's sole raison d'être is to turn large areas of different countries into rather warm glass...

Now, tell me, just who was being aggressive?

maybe next time the RAF should stay on the ground and have a nice cup of and we'll deal with the aftermath...

we had enough cold-war here in Europe when I was growing up, we don't need any more.

Back in the 70's I was on a russian jet airlighner areoflot and saw a british fighter aproach and break off , fantastick feeling, boy it was fast

<>

Probably plummeting to earth if it was British. Did you know that the Tornado drinks fuel faster than it can be re-fuelled at 30,000 ft? When intercepting airliners, they ask them to come down a bit.

I think it's hilarious that people accuse me of trolling, when in fact they themselves are happy to only sling insults rather than respond to the substance of the post.

Other great hypocrisys: Azaothoth loves to criticize media sources, and yet doesn't allow me to criticize the BBC.

kea loves to have people elaborate, and yet only posts emoticons

SoRB calls people stupid, but can only express himself using insults.

The British people see everyone else's actions as hostile or aggresive, but not their own. Case in point, this thread.

You would have a point, if only you had a point (with any substance behind it).
There is no substance for anyone to address in your original post.