US Stealth Bomber Crash: USAF Probes Guam Incident

  • Thread starter Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the crash of a B-2 stealth bomber in Guam, exploring reactions to the incident, the implications of military technology, and broader debates about military actions and ethics. Participants express a range of opinions on the military, the nature of conflict, and the morality of actions taken against perceived enemies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express sadness over the crash of the expensive aircraft, noting the rarity of such incidents.
  • Others criticize the military and express a lack of sympathy for military actions, regardless of personal military family history.
  • There are discussions about the definition of "enemy" and the justification for killing in conflict, with varying perspectives on the morality of such actions.
  • Some argue that eliminating insurgents is necessary for stability, while others suggest that changing perspectives and addressing root causes is more effective.
  • Participants challenge each other's views on the morality of military actions, with some asserting that relentless killing is justified, while others argue for a more nuanced approach.
  • There are claims that the situation in Iraq is complex and cannot be reduced to black-and-white thinking regarding insurgents and civilians.
  • Some participants express frustration with the discussion, suggesting that it is unproductive and that differing views are unlikely to change.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on the morality of military actions or the best approach to dealing with insurgents. Multiple competing views remain, with significant disagreement on the definitions and implications of terms like "enemy" and "relentless killing."

Contextual Notes

Participants reference legal definitions and moral justifications for military actions, indicating a reliance on subjective interpretations of complex issues. The discussion reflects a range of personal beliefs and experiences that inform individual perspectives.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in military ethics, conflict resolution, and the implications of military technology may find the varied viewpoints and debates in this discussion relevant.

fourier jr
Messages
764
Reaction score
13
US probes crash of stealth bomber
Last Updated: Saturday, 23 February 2008, 19:15 GMT

The US military is investigating why a B-2 stealth bomber crashed shortly after take-off on the island of Guam.
The United States Air Force (USAF) says the crash is the first ever involving the radar evading plane, which cost about $1.2bn (£610m) each to build.

They say both pilots ejected safely before the plane came down at Andersen Air Force Base.

The B-2 was one of just 21 such aircraft operated by the US, the only country which has the stealth bomber.

The crashed aircraft was not carrying munitions at the time of the incident, according to a statement from the Pacific Air Command.

The bomber is capable of carrying nuclear as well as conventional weapons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7260795.stm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Damn, that's a shame. Such a nice aircraft, and F'in expensive.
 
And really very rare to have one crash. Glad the pilots were able to get out.
 
I'm sorry, but Ha ha ha...ha ha...ha. I have no sympathy for the military and their death machines. Even if both of my grandfathers, plus two uncles, were in the Army and Navy.
 
binzing said:
I'm sorry, but Ha ha ha...ha ha...ha. I have no sympathy for the military and their death machines. Even if both of my grandfathers, plus two uncles, were in the Army and Navy.

...?
 
Cyrus said:
...?

He's entitled to his opinion. If you're going to respond, type up an actual response.

- Warren
 
binzing said:
I'm sorry, but Ha ha ha...ha ha...ha. I have no sympathy for the military and their death machines. Even if both of my grandfathers, plus two uncles, were in the Army and Navy.

But you must feel sorry for your tax dollars. However you can feel happy for the good people at Northrop Grumman's Military Aircraft Systems Division, Boeing Military Airplanes Co, Hughes Radar Systems Group, and General Electric Aircraft Engine Group because they all will probably in the near future be getting a big contract.
 
Hey, the pilots were OK so that's good. Yeah the technology is cool (make that really cool) but the implementation and cause are wrong.
 
Whats wrong about killing the enemy?
 
  • #10
Define enemy, and the reason to kill them. Like actual threat level
 
  • #11
I don't pay taxes (yet). If our high school yearbook had a "Most likely to become an ex-pat." I'd likely be on there.
 
  • #12
binzing said:
Define enemy, and the reason to kill them. Like actual threat level

Thats a legal definition based on the UN and the US law.

For example, I want the Iraqi insurgents vaporized into sand.
 
  • #13
They'll just fire out more of 'em if we keep showing that all we feel towards them is hatred. Also, the deserts of Iraq have enough sand.
 
  • #14
The problem with your argument is that you are connecting two separate ideas. We hate insurgents. These are not normal Iraqis, who we help. We show the Iraqi people we do not tolerate people hostile to the US, Iraqis, and the Iraqi government. We demonstrate this lack of tolerance by weeding them out and killing every last one of them if they do not decide to lay down their weapons.

It would be nice if life were black and white, but its not. And there are people in this world that need to be eliminated; -and you can't make apologies for doing it.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
I wasn't generalizing Iraqis and insurgents. How do you suggest we stop insurgents? We need to change their perspective. We can't kill every last one of them.
 
  • #16
That is the flaw in your logic. You can't change fundamentally radical people. You can only eliminate them, and hope the moderates will help and take over. The Iraqis have to stop the insurgents in their country. Its their problem more than ours.
 
  • #17
Yes it is there problem more than ours, but they're still likely to lapse back to the old ways. Also, if we continue killing relentlessly and our killing to helping ratio gets top heavy its going to affect the regular Iraqis views. Hey I'm just a 15 year old kid, what the hell do I know.
 
  • #18
So based on your logic. We can let them 'lapse back to their old ways' killing each other, or we can help them to kill insurgents and get on track to modern society. In what way is your solution more moral than the one that involves eliminating our enemy. (And by our, I mean Iraqis and Americans Enemy).

One thing you will have to come to terms with in the real world is that killing our enemy is the moral thing to do.

You're also using your words very loosely. Define 'killing relentlessly'.
 
  • #19
Killing relentlessly: searching out and destroying all insurgents (as you suggest)

I did not suggest we teach the Iraqis to kill the insurgents, where did you figure that from? I said that we need to change the views of the insurgents, as well as helping the whole population, across sectarian boundaries.
 
  • #20
binzing said:
Killing relentlessly: searching out and destroying all insurgents (as you suggest)

I did not suggest we teach the Iraqis to kill the insurgents, where did you figure that from? I said that we need to change the views of the insurgents, as well as helping the whole population, across sectarian boundaries.

Then you are purposefully using a very poor and misleading definition to suit your position. Searching out and destroying an enemy is highly moral act, and is one that shows care and concern for innocent civilians in the process.

I know you did not suggest we teach the Iraqis to kill the insurgents, but that's exactly what I am suggesting.

Can you explain how you are going to change the views of the insurgents without the use of deadly force? In the real world, that will not only get you killed, but embolden the insurgents to cause even more harm to you. If you want to get your enemy to calm down, you show them that either they can be reasonable, or that you will utterly ahnilate them.

Do you think a reasonable enemy would attack innocent civilians by blowing them up during a funeral? How are you going to talk reason into them? This is the basic problem with your logic.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Whatever, your not going to change your mind, and I'm not going to make you. Evo...Moonbear...Please kill this thread.
 
  • #22
Correction: Your not willing to see the world for what it is. Yes, its nice if the world were one big happy place, but sadly its not. But your line of thinking is dangerous. You might think it saves lives, but in fact it does the opposite. It gets more people killed.
 
  • #23
You misunderstand and seem to enjoy taking somewhat logical statements and blowing them out your ass. I'm done.
 
  • #24
But you avoided the question. How are you going to non-violently stop these people in a war?

Its not easy when you apply black and white logic to the real world where everything is shades of gray.

You can't make statements like 'relentless killing' and 'death machines' and not expect someone to hold you accountable for your statements.

I want you to appreciate what your grandfathers and uncles did when they served in the military, or you'd be speaking German/Russian right now and killing Jews in death camps. Or you would be speaking Arabic and praising Allah 7 times a day. (And no, these are not exaggerations).
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Cyrus said:
That is the flaw in your logic. You can't change fundamentally radical people. You can only eliminate them, and hope the moderates will help and take over. The Iraqis have to stop the insurgents in their country. Its their problem more than ours.

You're sounding fairly fundamentally radical to me - shall i eliminate you?
 
  • #26
In what way is anything I have said radical?

Killing those who want to kill you, and protecting those that don't are fundamentally moral. The same way a police man that shoots dead a crazed gunman is morally justified.
 
  • #27
In what way does my definition of radical have to match your own?
 
  • #28
If you try to kill me, or my allies in the world, I will find you and destroy you. No apologies. No second guesses. You're dead.
 
  • #29
Are you quite sure you're not German and we're not in the 1940s?
 
  • #30
Please present a serious argument if you want to dispute me. Waiving your hands in the air really means nothing to me.

I have clearly outlined cases where its morally justified to kill an enemy. Making a generalized nonsensical statement isn't going to fly with me.
 

Similar threads

News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K