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

F-15E jet shot down over Iran

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#41

Post by nemomarx »

spwa4 wrote: post #36
tokai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prisoner of war, not hostage. edit: I'm baffled by the amount of downvotes pointing out the objectively correct terminology can get. Its not a matter of opinion, military personnel captured by the enemy are pow no matter their treatment. A hostage, by definition, has been abducted.

That is assuming Iran holds itself to the Geneva conventions, which ... seems like an extremely risky bet to make.

Prisoner exchanges are a pretty strong motivator for any group, even hardline ones. If the Taliban was up for exchanges I think the IRGC is pretty likely to want to keep prisoners for that too.

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#42

Post by jeffbee »

paganel wrote: post #35
jeffbee wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only "high tech" to the aforementioned cavemen. To everyone else it's a 707 you can't even get spare tires for any more, equipped with some truly obsolete technology aboard. I mean it has a mechanical waveguide for crying out loud.

> equipped with some truly obsolete technology aboard. So I guess the US won't have any issues replacing it at a cheaper cost (as far as I understood that one cost $500 million, give or take).

The prototype E-7 cost $2 billion. It's a 737 with some radios.

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#43

Post by josefritzishere »

This is the dumbest, most pointless military conflict in American history. There is nothing plausible to win, but we can conceivably lose everything. A pyric victory is among the most favorable outcomes. We are led by corrupt imbeciles. I can only hope the outcome includes regime change for the U.S.

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#44

Post by tjpnz »

spwa4 wrote: post #36
tokai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prisoner of war, not hostage. edit: I'm baffled by the amount of downvotes pointing out the objectively correct terminology can get. Its not a matter of opinion, military personnel captured by the enemy are pow no matter their treatment. A hostage, by definition, has been abducted.

That is assuming Iran holds itself to the Geneva conventions, which ... seems like an extremely risky bet to make.

Why wouldn't they?

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#45

Post by nprz »

spwa4 wrote: post #36
tokai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prisoner of war, not hostage. edit: I'm baffled by the amount of downvotes pointing out the objectively correct terminology can get. Its not a matter of opinion, military personnel captured by the enemy are pow no matter their treatment. A hostage, by definition, has been abducted.

That is assuming Iran holds itself to the Geneva conventions, which ... seems like an extremely risky bet to make.

What has Iran done to show it would not uphold Geneva conventions?

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#47

Post by thinkingtoilet »

spwa4 wrote: post #36
tokai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prisoner of war, not hostage. edit: I'm baffled by the amount of downvotes pointing out the objectively correct terminology can get. Its not a matter of opinion, military personnel captured by the enemy are pow no matter their treatment. A hostage, by definition, has been abducted.

That is assuming Iran holds itself to the Geneva conventions, which ... seems like an extremely risky bet to make.

The US doesn't hold itself to the conventions, why should the country it started a war of aggression with?

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#48

Post by mothballed »

nemomarx wrote: post #41
spwa4 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is assuming Iran holds itself to the Geneva conventions, which ... seems like an extremely risky bet to make.

Prisoner exchanges are a pretty strong motivator for any group, even hardline ones. If the Taliban was up for exchanges I think the IRGC is pretty likely to want to keep prisoners for that too.

I would note ISIS put out some high res, professionally edited video of burning a (Jordanian?) pilot to death while inside a cage. Quite savage, but the propaganda effect is more profound than about anything else I've seen.

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#49

Post by empyrrhicist »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #39
spwa4 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is assuming Iran holds itself to the Geneva conventions, which ... seems like an extremely risky bet to make.

Especially after the double-tap on civilians and first responders the US just did on that bridge. Or the threat for no quarters from the secretary of defense. Or the threats to destroy critical civilian infrastructure for water or power.

Or Hegseth running his mouth about exactly this issue...

Re: F-15E jet shot down over Iran

#50

Post by eqvinox »

ge96 wrote: post #31
jeffbee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how anti-aircraft missiles always work.

In that video it seems like something shoots at the missile is what I'm saying from the F35 Someone said maybe a form of DIRCM

You're talking about a single "dash" on the frame before it goes all white. First question, if it were a laser, would be what exactly are you seeing there? A laser from the side is invisible, there'd need to be dust there, or the air would need to have turned into plasma. I don't think either makes that much sense. Second question/problem would be… it would have failed/be malfunctioning because —

— pretty much all AA munition works by exploding in close proximity to the target and showering it in shrapnel. So this might even have "helped" the missle/shell against malfunction in its fuse. And considering that this is designed to work like that, and it's likely not the greatest quality work on the Iranian side, it's also possible that the thing is already exploding and just ejected some piece of intentional shrapnel (or unintentionally itself) early, ahead of the actual detonation.

Or the Iranians edited that "dash" into that one frame, it's not exactly like it's a reputable source and it's in their interest to confuse things. Maybe they want the US to believe that the countermeasures are malfunctioning and helping their attacks, so they turn it off…

Post reply on HN