Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MH17 Report

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 146 posts

Re: MH17 Report

#81

Post by TeMPOraL »

ptaipale wrote: post #45
aikah wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Next time I fly I'm going to check over which countries we fly Can you really get that info before hand(well I guess one can access previous flight plans) ? If the passengers knew that, would have they cancelled their trip ? I certainly would have. Never the less, the risk assessment was bad and too many people died that day. Should a war be blamed for being a war? Or should companies be blamed for being too greedy…

> Can you really get that info before hand? That question is not new and is rather simple to google, see for instance http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-find-the-route-your-plane... I dislike the message here, which shifts the blame on the victims (the captain who chooses the flight path, and who was killed). The blame belongs with the operators of that BUK system. (Incidentally, this victim-blaming has been one them…

This shows exactly why dismissing something as "victim-blaming" is usually missing the point. You can't discuss stupidity of that concept in terms of the most common uses of the phrase, but hopefully people are not as emotionally charged about airplanes getting shot down.

Yes, it's obviously moral fault of whoever operated that BUK system. But flying over an active warzone where planes have already been shot down shows lack of practical wisdom. So while only one side gets to be called evil, the other side can be justly considered irresponsible.

Re: MH17 Report

#82

Post by marme »

vkou2 wrote: post #23
curiousjorge wrote: post #22

The entire world except Russia knew Russia is responsible but when you are the second guy with the most nukes, you get away with impunity. Just the idea of having one or others thinking you have more than one nuke is enough to allow others to look the other way and let you do whatever gay shit that you do

Being the guy with the most nukes lets you get away with similar things. Nobody was brought to justice here, either. Two commanders did receive medals for their tour there, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

this is not even the first time the russian/soviet military has been involved in shooting down a civilian airliner. The last time it was even more blatant and no one did anything https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

Re: MH17 Report

#83

Post by jakobdabo »

tptacek wrote: post #73
jakobdabo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Russian media it's quite the opposite. They say Russia doesn't use the 9M38 missiles any more, Ukraine does.

They are full of it. There are pictures of Putin at Russian military bases standing in front of 9M38M1 missiles!

Obviously, I don't know who shot the missile.

But when trying to use logic here, I don't see why would Russia shoot the plane. They had nothing to gain. Ukraine? I don't know, I refuse to believe they would deliberately kill hundreds for some advantage. My bet is on the rebels who did it mistakenly. The question is whose BUK they used. One provided by Russia or one taken from an abandoned Ukrainian base.

Re: MH17 Report

#84

Post by tptacek »

d0mine wrote: post #79
tptacek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The maps you're linking to further implicate the rebels (see again the video reconstruction, which illustrates the trajectory the missile took from its launch site, which is not the same as the crash site, placing the missile launch even further from areas of Ukrainian control and even closer to Russia.) Further, to even entertain this question, you have to believe that Ukraine positioned BUK launchers in the most he…

If it is so obvious why do you think the report does not say that?

The report answers that question.

Re: MH17 Report

#86

Post by TeMPOraL »

ptaipale wrote: post #78
tremon wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I can understand your reasoning, what will you do if your plane's flight path does take you over a warzone? Will you stay home? Try to persuade the captain to alter the flight path? Try to persuade other passengers not to board the plane? I think there's 0% chance of your ticket being refunded if you don't show up at the gate, and serious chance of finding yourself on a no-fly list if you do show up and refuse…

And: it's not really so easy to define "active warzone". As said, hundreds if not thousands of commercial planes fly over conflict zones every day, successfully. Just to pick a random example: Flight TK7900 IST-SIN is up in the air right now (19:32 GMT on Oct 13, 2015). For a picture of the route, see this. http://tinyurl.com/obzlxxv Over the past few hours, it crossed from Turkmenistan/Iran to Afghanistan a bit nort…

> But I would only blame those who shoot it down. It's not okay to shoot down airplanes. Commercial airplanes are not valid targets.

If only reality worked that way. In real war, everything is a potential target - sometimes civilians get hurt by mistake, other times because one side decides to take advantage of the "rules" above and e.g. hide weapons in hospitals.

In general, if an area of land is a warzone and it's known there are anti-aircraft missiles deployed, and there are confirmed shootdowns of aircrafts in the area, you don't fly over that area. Flying there shows lack of practical wisdom. You're betting lives over desperate people following some arbitrary rules and not making any mistake.

In general, exposing yourself willingly to significant danger is stupid, and if anything happens to you, you can't avoid some part of responsibility.

Re: MH17 Report

#87

Post by tptacek »

jakobdabo wrote: post #83
tptacek wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are full of it. There are pictures of Putin at Russian military bases standing in front of 9M38M1 missiles!

Obviously, I don't know who shot the missile. But when trying to use logic here, I don't see why would Russia shoot the plane. They had nothing to gain. Ukraine? I don't know, I refuse to believe they would deliberately kill hundreds for some advantage. My bet is on the rebels who did it mistakenly. The question is whose BUK they used. One provided by Russia or one taken from an abandoned Ukrainian base.

I don't know how to respond to this comment.

Your earlier comment parroted a line that is apparently popular in the Russian media, that Russia no longer uses the 9M38M1 SAM. But that missile is distinctive, and can been seen in recent photographs at Russian military installations.

I didn't say that Russia shot down MH17. I said that if they're claiming not to use that missile, they're lying. Why? What a weird thing to lie about, that's so easily falsifiable.

Re: MH17 Report

#88

Post by TeMPOraL »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #47
ronmacgill wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The E. Ukr rebels were using shoulder-fired missiles and were firing at planes close to the ground. Quite a different kettle of fish than buk missiles which requires a lot more technical coordination

Once you've got determination to shoot down planes with people inside, getting a bigger gun doesn't seem impossible.

Especially since you're getting good at shooting down low-altitude flights you can expect the enemy to fly higher, at which point getting a weapon with greater range seems prudent.

Re: MH17 Report

#89

Post by SuddsMcDuff »

stvswn wrote: post #68
SuddsMcDuff wrote: post #64

I find it really fascinating that they've gone to such lengths to literally recreate a large portion of the plane from the wreckage in order to better understand what happened. I can't help but think though, why weren't similar measures taken with Flight 93 (Pennsylvania, 2001-09-11) or Flight 77 (Pentagon, 2001-09-11)? I don't wish to allude to any of the many conspiracy theories, but I do find it interesting to see…

I see you're interested in the history of the 9/11 attacks! Here's a 600 page report with over 100 pages of footnotes. The first chapter deals with the hijackings. You can start your research there! http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf In later chapters, there's a lot of discussion about the terrorist group that planned the hijackings, and not much discussion on missile ballistics. That's because the fo…

Thanks, I've read much of the report of course. What you notice about the report is that there's a tremendous focus on the build up to the attacks, the context and the aftermath, but it's very light on the technical analysis of the actual event that you would normally see in an air crash investigation - such as what we're now seeing with MH17. Admittedly the two events are hardly comparable, but I stand by my observation that there's a distinct disparity between the amount & quality of information that's being disseminated. There may be perfectly good reasons for that.

Re: MH17 Report

#90

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #87
jakobdabo wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, I don't know who shot the missile. But when trying to use logic here, I don't see why would Russia shoot the plane. They had nothing to gain. Ukraine? I don't know, I refuse to believe they would deliberately kill hundreds for some advantage. My bet is on the rebels who did it mistakenly. The question is whose BUK they used. One provided by Russia or one taken from an abandoned Ukrainian base.

I don't know how to respond to this comment. Your earlier comment parroted a line that is apparently popular in the Russian media, that Russia no longer uses the 9M38M1 SAM. But that missile is distinctive, and can been seen in recent photographs at Russian military installations. I didn't say that Russia shot down MH17. I said that if they're claiming not to use that missile, they're lying. Why? What a weird thing t…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN