Sooooo…if one of these crashes, wouldn’t that be considered an act of war and trigger Article 5?
Shouldn’t this already be an act of war? They are attempting to cause crashes outright.
They already shot down a civilian plane in 2014, killing hundreds of people, including many citizens of NATO countries
Possibly, but also keep in mind article five doesn’t say that any hostile act leads to automatic full scale war in response:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Emphasis on “such action as it deems necessary,” meaning a country can individually respond with its own discretion on what it thinks is a proportional response. Though in practice any response and individual contributions would be heavily negotiated within NATO. Theoretically a country could say it deems no action necessary even if article five was invoked. Just another reason why electing pro Russian leaders like Trump, Orban, or now Fico in Slovakia are dangerous and threaten the existence of NATO, even if they don’t technically leave NATO.
It’s particularly tough with kalingrad because the proportional response is bombing their jammers and air defenses, but kalingrad has a whole metric shit ton of air defenses, a large stockpile of nuclear weapons, and support against such an attack would overfly poland so even that has a very high chance of leading to nuclear war.
MH17 was shot down by a Russian Buk system given to the separatists, and likely with polite green ‘advisors’ nearby to set up and operate the SAM. Once they realized their fuckup they rushed it across the Donbas and back to Russia, but it was spotted several times en route both ways.
If that didn’t count, why would much harder to prove jamming trigger A5? NATO forces (yes, even Poland) are not risking escalation on their territory, even if that means Russian helicopters and cruise missiles can ‘temporarily get lost’ in NATO airspace.
What are you expecting NATO to do? Going to Wartm over one measly airliner and a few 10’s of random people isn’t an option here and all the parties understand that. Are you willing to see and be a part of the millions of deaths that the Wartm would bring? Because you know SOMEONE would push the Buttontm and Armageddon would happen.
Obligatory Tom Lehrer: [(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrbv40ENU_o)]
Let’s call it super special military operation
Then we wouldn’t need to violate trade marks
Gregarious use of tm.
Bye.
if one of these crashes, wouldn’t that be considered an act of war and trigger Article 5?
Article 5 is, ultimately, triggered by action within the EU. If Europeans want to treat this as another Boeing nosedive rather than a military action, they’ll wave it away.
As it stands, Vlad has been growing support within Southern European parliaments - Italy, Greece, France, Spain - and that might make invoking Article 5 more difficult than pointing at a downed airliner and proclaiming “Russia did this”.
Yeah, in Spain not really, not sure were you get that from
Unidas Podemos has bucked the current government position and sided against NATO on a number of legislative votes.
I’m gonna copypaste what I said in another reply to my comment (because I think it applies):
Not being in support of Ukraine is not the same as being in support of Vlad. Not at all. The only ones that MIGHT be pro Vlad, and I am not 100% sure of their position, are Vox.
There are a million reasons not to meddlr in these external affairs. Veing anti-war, our country not being precisely well economically, recognizing Ukraine is neither on NATO nor the EU, so interfering is riskier.
Global morals are all good and well, but the representatives should look for the well being of their voters, not everyone in the Globe.
Not saying they should say “fuck Ukraine”, we have received a lot of Ukrainian refugees in Spain. But that doesn’t mean we should get involved in their war.
Not being in support of Ukraine is not the same as being in support of Vlad.
I agree in theory. But, in practice, not supporting Ukraine against Russia is a bit like not supporting Biden against Trump. To use an old Bushism, “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
Global morals are all good and well, but the representatives should look for the well being of their voters, not everyone in the Globe.
The counterargument in favor of supporting the Ukrainian side of the war is that Russia is an existential threat to Europe. And, to borrow another Bushism, “We need to fight them over there so we’re not fighting them over here.”
Not saying they should say “fuck Ukraine”, we have received a lot of Ukrainian refugees in Spain.
I agree here wholeheartedly. The first and foremost mission of any serious relief effort should be refugee relief and resettlement. But that’s another thing the pro-war wings of big western states tend to be against. For all their hawkishness, the British and Americans have been the most stingy when it comes to absorbing refugees. Meanwhile, the more peacenik members of the EU - your Polands and Hungarys and Romanias - are taking on the lion’s share.
PSOE might be in support of Ukraine, but some of it’s allies are not. That’s the only thing I can imagine.
Not being in support of Ukraine is not the same as being in support of Vlad. Not at all. The only ones that MIGHT be pro Vlad, and I am not 100% sure of their position, are Vox.
There are a million reasons not to meddlr in these external affairs. Veing anti-war, our country not being precisely well economically, recognizing Ukraine is neither on NATO nor the EU, so interfering is riskier.
Global morals are all good and well, but the representatives should look for the well being of their voters, not everyone in the Globe.
Not saying they should say “fuck Ukraine”, we have received a lot of Ukrainian refugees in Spain. But that doesn’t mean we should get involved in their war.
Ukraine alone can’t face Russia, nobody disagrees with that. Russia doesn’t need support to win, they only need Ukraine to not have. You can’t be really neutral if the conflict is so uneven.
Wether you like it or not, inaction is support for Russia. Right after the first attack some independents in Spain, the ones constantly asking for international sorry support, said we should not get involved in Russia’s invasion, which is ironic to say the least and very suspicious. This isn’t only Vox, a lot of the left (
I’m also not sure it’s on our best interest, economical or otherwise, to let Russia gobble up Ukraine and all it’s natural resources. Even from a completely selfish point of view, Russia controlling all of Ukraine is also risky.
I just want to note here that airliners do not rely solely on GPS for navigation, in fact GPS is usually just one form of backup for navigation instructions received from air traffic controllers.
That’s only true around landing and takeoff. For the most part their navigation relies on hybridized data from their inertial, air data and GPS, with several redundancies in place for bad readings and cumulative errors. Among all of this autonomous measurement apparatus, the GPS is the only part that doesn’t require numeric integration from speed or acceleration data to yield a position reading, and thus it is the only one that doesn’t drift over time. It’s actually fairly important, and it’s why using the gnss jammers you can find on amazon is super illegal
Among all of this autonomous measurement apparatus, the GPS is the only part that doesn’t require numeric integration from speed or acceleration data to yield a position reading
My point is that in the airspace we’re talking about, GPS is not the only source of accurate positional information. ATC radars and transponders can and do provide reliable position information all over that area, and it is ATC that’s responsible for routing and separation in those specific airspaces, not the pilots. ADS-B does rely on GPS, that’s true, so if there was a complete outage of GPS in an area, that might mean delays due to additional separation requirements, as ATC won’t get accurate secondary information back from the airliners’ GPS units.
All I’m saying is that while losing GPS would be a bother, European flight control won’t start losing airliners and as a pilot you won’t end up in Malmö instead of Helsinki just because GPS is down. Worst case scenario is congestion and delays at the destination airport, and possible diversions because of that.
Kalingrad gonna kalingrad.
Have they not renamed it to Putingrad yet?
This affects particularly small airfields that don’t have tower operations. Because they rely on GPS-based systems. The larger airports have backup systems in place.
I’m not entirely sure what you are talking about, but most backup systems are Plane based.
GPS is mostly used for something called RNAV, however, RNAV can work without GPS. RNP approaches need GPS, but all airports (regardless how small, because without it would only be an airfield) have different approaches for both pilots and ground personnel to choose from. GPS always has the possibility to fail, for the simple fact that the US military can just turn if the civilian frequencies. GPS is more or less an addition and not a crucial system (except for GPWS - while most planes have radar altimeters, they can’t react fast enough in some cases)
For those interested, here’s a Video where GPS gets jammed and there’s an explanation on what they do and what happens, when it gets spoofed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dG_Whxzdkk
the US military can just turn if the civilian frequencies.
If you’re talking about selective availability, that’s basically gone. It started getting phased out by Clinton in 2000 and newer satellites don’t even have that capability.
Didn’t know that - i always thought all GPS sats have the ability to encrypt the signals…
Can you dumb that down a tad for me?
My understanding IFR is completely (or mostly?) without GPS, and uses plane-based instruments for direction, heading, speed, altitude, anything else? And like ground-based radio objects, such as localizers, I don’t know the terms or if there are multiple systems?
Highly depends on the approach. IFR can be a lot of stuff. All systems can be used at once as well (And in many cases, they are used all together)
Sounds more like an Israeli tactic
This has been happening on and off for months in Lebanon, the pilots have all been landing without GPS lately in case it cuts out again while they’re mid-landing. Utter chaos when it first happened, delivery drivers especially were very lost, and people in general had a tough time dealing with the loss of GPS. We don’t have a rigorous address system so sending locations to each other’s phones is really important here.
I think “sounds more like” is a weird thing to say though for this kind of thing
Whys it a weird thing to say, they’ve been known to do it
