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

41–50 of 178 posts

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

#41

Post by effie »

pluto9 wrote: post #27
effie wrote: post #5

It is so weird that men in army are willing to go and kill each other and later behave as friends "because they have a shared experience". Is it a coping mechanism to help oneself' conscience? Or maybe just an example that we really are just machines following the program of the day?

It's not weird at all. Soldiers on opposite sides have a lot in common, just as you might have a lot in common with someone of your profession from a different country. Their conflict is that of their respective countries, or they may think they're serving a good cause. But in either case, it's not personal. It's also a mistake to think that every time a soldier shows an ounce of humanity, they're only doing it to "h…

> Why should these two men's consciences bother them?

It would bother me, so I'm projecting.

But good points. I am also more inclined to understand this as a case of people "just working here". Like Germans were.

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

#42

Post by arminiusreturns »

effie wrote: post #5

It is so weird that men in army are willing to go and kill each other and later behave as friends "because they have a shared experience". Is it a coping mechanism to help oneself' conscience? Or maybe just an example that we really are just machines following the program of the day?

Anecdotal, but I've witnessed this effect in more than just military men, but rather in males in general. I know lots of guys who tell a story that contains something like; "we got into a fight, but later we became friends"... I'm both, and have done the same. Perhaps there is some more fundamental male psychology at play here?

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

#43

Post by jariel »

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…

"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 enemy"

The U2 has been flying for literally decades, even to this day, relatively unencumbered. The performance ratio is way in the favour of 'confident war room'.

Also - it's hard to say anything about submarines, they're so clouded in secrecy, I think the truth tends not to come out until a couple of decades after the fact.

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

#44

Post by s5300 »

pluto9 wrote: post #27
effie wrote: post #5

It is so weird that men in army are willing to go and kill each other and later behave as friends "because they have a shared experience". Is it a coping mechanism to help oneself' conscience? Or maybe just an example that we really are just machines following the program of the day?

It's not weird at all. Soldiers on opposite sides have a lot in common, just as you might have a lot in common with someone of your profession from a different country. Their conflict is that of their respective countries, or they may think they're serving a good cause. But in either case, it's not personal. It's also a mistake to think that every time a soldier shows an ounce of humanity, they're only doing it to "h…

>>Soldiers are usually not the tortured individuals Hollywood portrays them to be.

I don't know nor care of Hollywood portrayals, but you should consider looking at some suicide statistics and then apologizing.

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

#45

Post by GiorgioG »

MarkusWandel wrote: post #23

Worldwide, the sort of divisions where one's own side is all good and the other side is unspeakably evil, are on the upswing again. Having lived through a full cycle of this (old style cold war/thaw/current situation) I try to remind people that we're all humans, and about 99% everywhere have the same instincts to survive and get along. Not everyone listens.

> about 99% everywhere have the same instincts to survive and get along

I just finished listening to The Doomsday Machine audiobook (https://www.amazon.com/The-Doomsday-Machine-audiobook/dp/B07...) and it's had a profound effect on how I see our military leadership's nuclear strategy. While the book delves primarily into the 1950s-80s, as far as the author is concerned (he worked as a consultant on nuclear strategy,) the policies have not materially changed since then. Some examples of some things that were eye-opening to me:

- The military deliberately hid their nuclear war strategy from the secretary of defense (and thus the president, etc.) for years.

- US Presidents often invoke the threat of nuclear attack to force nations to bend to its will - to this day, democrats and republicans alike.

- The gov't has done a good job of selling that only the president can order a nuclear strike, but in practice there's a lot more people involved that can launch a nuclear attack without requiring clearance (in years past, this was due to potential communication issues, but even to this day these remain in order to counter potential 'decapitation' attacks. This delegation system means we're one person's mistake (or mental illness) from starting a world-ending cascade of nuclear strikes as other nations respond in kind.

I'm under no delusion that the world can do away with nuclear weapons, but maybe we should stop threatening to use it first like it's no big deal. It seems that our military leadership historically isn't exactly in that 99% group of folks who want to live and get along.

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

#46

Post by pdoege »

pastrami_panda wrote: post #7

For those curious (the article doesn't address it) it was the bomb hatch that momentarily gave away the planes position. I'm curious as to how such a huge oversight in the design of the craft made it to production, since it's widely known that 90 degree angles is a surefire way to get instantly detected on radar.

It was less about technical factors relating to stealth than human factors.

The USAF reused the route packages and the shooters knew the approximate location and timing of the flight. A Serbian asset tipped off the shooters that the normal SEAD assets would not be present. Without SEAD the shooters were able to keep transmitting long enough to see the plane. There were 3 F-117 in the flight, only one had its doors open long enough for the shooters to acquire.

Different routes, randomized timing, SEAD presence, better stealth hygiene and it would have been just another night.

The Serbian commander comes across as skilled, creative, and diligent. The USAF comes across as lazy and sloppy that night.

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

#47

Post by kipchak »

effie wrote: post #22
hellotomyrars wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had the same experience. They didn’t choose to fight each other as a matter of specificity, they chose to serve their country. Soldiers are effectively tools of a nation and most of them understand that. They were both doing their jobs and why should they take it personally? They both came out the other side and if their roles had been reversed they would have done the same thing.

Yeah I get that point of view, "I'm here just following orders, no hard feelings". And that is part of what is weird to me in these stories from wars, that people are so malleable and empty and later talk big about respecting the other side. Well respect them and don't bomb/shoot missiles at them then. Also, the article sounds very artistic and fake, I'm not totally buying it.

Without getting into the politics of it, the purpose of the air strikes according to NATO to "to halt and reverse the humanitarian catastrophe that was then unfolding."[1] - specifically a "ethnic cleansing campaign"[2]. I think it's possible the pilot or others to feel they're there for reasonable reasons, even if they don't hold any particular ill will towards the guy on the other side.

[1]https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_48818.htm

[2]https://www.nato.int/kosovo/history.htm

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

#48

Post by pluto9 »

effie wrote: post #41
pluto9 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not weird at all. Soldiers on opposite sides have a lot in common, just as you might have a lot in common with someone of your profession from a different country. Their conflict is that of their respective countries, or they may think they're serving a good cause. But in either case, it's not personal. It's also a mistake to think that every time a soldier shows an ounce of humanity, they're only doing it to "h…

> Why should these two men's consciences bother them? It would bother me, so I'm projecting. But good points. I am also more inclined to understand this as a case of people "just working here". Like Germans were.

There's an element of the "just working here" mentality, but it's more than that. I was in Afghanistan more than a decade ago, and in my mind, we were fighting against the abuses and brutality of the Taliban. The guy shooting at me from a mountainside with a PKM was "one of them", a legitimate bad guy.

In retrospect, I realize that guy was probably much like me. A young guy, full of testosterone and looking for adventure, with notions of being part of something grand and heroic (repelling an invader) and a certain naivete about the larger forces and agendas that were using him. We'd probably get along if we met now.

Awhile back I saw a conversation on Reddit between an American soldier who fought in Ramadi (or maybe Fallujah, I can't remember) and an Iraqi soldier who was there at the same time fighting against the Americans. There was no ill will at all, just storytelling and reminiscing, and talking about the courses of their lives, families, and careers since then. The fact was that these guys had almost everything in common about that time in their lives, and had similar motivations for taking part in it. The only difference was that they happened to be on opposite sides.

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

#49

Post by acct776 »

aerosmile wrote: post #17

There is so much gold in here. The human race would do well to explore how it's possible to turn hatred into love. It clearly happened here, and I've witnessed it on a smaller scale as a 16 year old in Vienna. As an immigrant, it was easy to find yourself in the wrong place at a wrong time. That finally happened one night, and the only thing that saved me was seeing a sign on one of the guys' jackets that belonged to…

> how it's possible to turn hatred into love.

Remove yourself from the influence of the military-industrial-Congressional complex.

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

#50

Post by lostlogin »

pluto9 wrote: post #27
effie wrote: post #5

It is so weird that men in army are willing to go and kill each other and later behave as friends "because they have a shared experience". Is it a coping mechanism to help oneself' conscience? Or maybe just an example that we really are just machines following the program of the day?

It's not weird at all. Soldiers on opposite sides have a lot in common, just as you might have a lot in common with someone of your profession from a different country. Their conflict is that of their respective countries, or they may think they're serving a good cause. But in either case, it's not personal. It's also a mistake to think that every time a soldier shows an ounce of humanity, they're only doing it to "h…

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 is widely glorified. It is estimated that 70% of conflicts involve child soldiers, though any measurement is hard due variable definitions and the difficulty in measuring.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_the_military

https://www.savethechildren.org/us/charity-stories/child-sol...

Post reply on HN