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

An F-117 pilot and the officer who shot him down meet, 15 years later (2013)

rd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 178 posts

Re: An F-117 pilot and the officer who shot him down meet, 15 years later (2013)

#131

Post by lostlogin »

pluto9 wrote: post #55
lostlogin wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are attributing a lot of what goes on to choice - war has a poor track record in this regard and soldiers are often recruited very young and/or conscripted. Even the US recruits soldiers defined by the Convention on the protection of children (below 18). Schools are used for recruiting in many places. This aspect of war is really sad - giving kids and young adults guns and sending them off to shoot people…

I'm talking about the men in this article. Both of them were career military officers. It's fair to say that that was their choice. Certainly there's propaganda that goes into recruiting naive young people in the US, but it's quite a stretch to equate that with child soldiers. I chose to enlist and so did everyone I served with. The vast majority of us do not regret it or feel that we were conned.

> Certainly there's propaganda that goes into recruiting naive young people in the US, but it's quite a stretch to equate that with child soldiers.

The US has signed The Convention on the Protection of Children. This agreement defines a child solder as one below the age of 18.

You may not feel conned but it’s not just about you - it’s the places they go, the decisions they make and the population they supposedly protect that should also matter.

Re: An F-117 pilot and the officer who shot him down meet, 15 years later (2013)

#132

Post by lostlogin »

jki275 wrote: post #115
effie wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

18 year olds men are mentally immature. Not children, but for sure they are teenagers.

And yet they get to vote.

Yes, but younger kids get recruited. The voting age in the US is 18 as far as I can tell, and the US military recruits 17 year olds.

https://www.usa.gov/voter-registration-age-requirements

Re: An F-117 pilot and the officer who shot him down meet, 15 years later (2013)

#135

Post by pluto9 »

lostlogin wrote: post #131
pluto9 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about the men in this article. Both of them were career military officers. It's fair to say that that was their choice. Certainly there's propaganda that goes into recruiting naive young people in the US, but it's quite a stretch to equate that with child soldiers. I chose to enlist and so did everyone I served with. The vast majority of us do not regret it or feel that we were conned.

> Certainly there's propaganda that goes into recruiting naive young people in the US, but it's quite a stretch to equate that with child soldiers. The US has signed The Convention on the Protection of Children. This agreement defines a child solder as one below the age of 18. You may not feel conned but it’s not just about you - it’s the places they go, the decisions they make and the population they supposedly prot…

There is little difference in maturity between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, and I would not consider either a child. And 17 year olds cannot be deployed.

But since we're being legalistic, yes, we signed the convention. But we did not ratify it. It is not legally binding on us.

Re: An F-117 pilot and the officer who shot him down meet, 15 years later (2013)

#136

Post by lostlogin »

pluto9 wrote: post #135
lostlogin wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Certainly there's propaganda that goes into recruiting naive young people in the US, but it's quite a stretch to equate that with child soldiers. The US has signed The Convention on the Protection of Children. This agreement defines a child solder as one below the age of 18. You may not feel conned but it’s not just about you - it’s the places they go, the decisions they make and the population they supposedly prot…

There is little difference in maturity between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, and I would not consider either a child. And 17 year olds cannot be deployed. But since we're being legalistic, yes, we signed the convention. But we did not ratify it. It is not legally binding on us.

> But we did not ratify it. It is not legally binding on us.

Yes, mostly.

“When a state has signed the treaty but not ratified it, it is not yet bound by the treaty's provisions but is already obliged to not act contrary to its purpose.”

Re: An F-117 pilot and the officer who shot him down meet, 15 years later (2013)

#137

Post by fsloth »

crusty wrote: post #118

One aspect of this that lends itself to the type of "easy" reconciliation that makes us think avoiding war shouldn't be so hard, is that neither party here actually had a sustained interest in the other. Serbia didn't have years, let alone decades or centuries, of grievance against the USA, and vis versa. The same with the US and Vietnam, or Japan, or Germany, or just about every other war the US has gotten involved…

Excellent point. Also, the protagonists in this story were not taught to hate each others national identities at birth. There is a point where people become so indoctrinated with hate that before start making pastry, the hate would need to be de-programmed.

Re: An F-117 pilot and the officer who shot him down meet, 15 years later (2013)

#138

Post by enkid »

necovek wrote: post #129
crusty wrote: post #118

One aspect of this that lends itself to the type of "easy" reconciliation that makes us think avoiding war shouldn't be so hard, is that neither party here actually had a sustained interest in the other. Serbia didn't have years, let alone decades or centuries, of grievance against the USA, and vis versa. The same with the US and Vietnam, or Japan, or Germany, or just about every other war the US has gotten involved…

I think the ultimate solution needs to come down from UN in setting a legal framework for parts of the country to secede. I.e. it's generally an economic interest for separatists rise to power, and I wonder if we could stymie that by making it legal for parts of countries to secede under a certain set of terms (paying "damages" to the parent country, obligating parent country to allow free travel and similar for a pr…

The UN purposefully doesn't involve itself in internal politics of its member states unless there is an clear reason to. Setting such a framework would be down right disastrous for some countries and would likely be ignored by many other countries that would be the countries that would need such a framework the most. It would also be unenforceable.

Re: An F-117 pilot and the officer who shot him down meet, 15 years later (2013)

#140

Post by afterburner »

nimbius wrote: post #9

This wasnt very surprising when it happened as historically The united states is its own worst enemy when it comes to military counterintelligence assessments. Id surmise no general wants to openly admit to the enemies asymmetric advantage. Francis Gary Powers was no doubt stunned to find his U2 spyplane tumbling from the skies in 1960 thanks to what I can only imagine is inherent bias in the war room against the ene…

Tupolev TU-95, Wikipedia: "First flown in 1952, the Tu-95 entered service with the Soviet Union in 1956 and is expected to serve the Russian Aerospace Forces until at least 2040"

Yeesh, I guess they must have done something right with that plane.

Post reply on HN