Is there any reason to think that the US would be going to war with Mexico, that Russia would support Mexico, or that Russia would even have the capabilities to do reconnaissance so far away from Russia and close to the US?
Is there a point to this hypothetical besides trying to garner sympathy for Russia and their war?
The point of this hypothetical is to illustrate the reality of the situation: Russia is at war with Ukraine and the US has been doing extensive reconnaissance for them, for over a year. The US would have never been so patient in a similar situation.
> The US would have never been so patient in a similar situation.
"Patience" isn't an accurate characterization of what's happening here. Of course Russia would be delighted to shoot down those drones, or any manned reconnaissance aircraft in the area as well. They refrain from doing this because there would be unwelcome consequences, not because they're carefully observing some law or principle.
You can certainly tweak your strained hypothetical in such a way that the US would be bound by similar constraints. (that's not even difficult, it's just a matter of examining the hypothetical a little more closely - imagine how much would have gone wrong for the United States military in order for it to even be in a real war with Mexico) It's just a matter of hypotheticals like this not being very useful.
“Patience” is a good characterization because (as you have observed correctly) they’ve refrained from doing so in the past to avoid the consequences of such actions, but now, crucially, the are taking them down.
Now, invading Mexico is still a remote prospect at this point, but if you think the US wouldn’t “defend their interests” there, you’d better read up on the Monroe Doctrine and 19th and 20th century history of the Americas.
It is right next to NATO airspace as well as an active war instigated by Russia.
Also, do you really think the Russians scramble their strategic bombers to Alaska because it is next to their borders? They don't do the same to China or North Korea.
PRC and DPRK don't have nuclear first-strike policies/histories nor have publicly advocated for the overthrow of the Russian government. Again, apples and oranges.
What would the US do if Russia was flying a sophisticated drone in the Gulf of Mexico 24 Miles from the US coast?
What kinds of deception are up to the people who do this for a full time job. (If it was me I would send two of our drones, one to stand off a bit and record video, then the other drone would attempt to 'mate' the Russian drone midair.)
Yes, there are many incidents but the vast majority aren't airspace violations in the strict sense. Just some aircraft coming close to territorial waters or harassing other aircraft or ships.
For starters Crimea isn't Russia, it's Ukraine. Secondly, Russia flies close to US borders and assets all the time and we don't recklessly do things like this.
Your question is loaded and has two implications which are based on wrong premises.
The drone was not 24 miles from the Russian coast. It was 75 miles southwest of Crimea, which is the Ukranian coast. The Russian jets were very very far away from home, they weren't in any way protecting Russian airspace.
When Russians violate airspace (like they often do in Europe) or come dangerously close to doing so in the USA, they are intercepted by fighter jets and asked to leave. Dropping fuel on their planes and flying like an idiot and then lying about it is generally not part of the NATO response.
I would be surprised if it wasn't already capable of that (doesn't even require AI, basic heuristics would be enough), but I guess that outside of a full-on war, they'd rather not disclose that capability even if it means losing a few units here and there.
Yes, this was obviously a deliberate attempt to disable or at least disrupt the drone. But the drone was almost certainly conducting surveillance to benefit Ukraine. As such, the Russian actions are not necessarily an act of war against the US. The US seems to be reacting as the Russians expected, hence the Russians may not be insane.
See the closing paragraph of this article:
Mary Ellen O’Connell, a Notre Dame Law School professor and expert on international law and the use of force, noted that by dumping fuel and downing the drone, the Russian pilot was “further polluting the fragile Black Sea”, but she noted the US had not called the interception “unlawful”.
“In all likelihood the Reaper was conducting surveillance for Ukraine. Under the laws of armed conflict Russia may disrupt such assistance,” O’Connell said.
Nobody is going to go to war over a drone, even an expensive one. They were clearly intending to take it down or at least render it useless, though the collision was probably unintentional.
I saw this video earlier today. I'm not versed in flying machines, but how certain of a collision is it? From my layman's viewpoint I've only heard the people on CNN calling it a collision, and now this guy, but honestly I can't tell.
What else could have caused that magnitude of propeller damage to the drone? From what I could see, it was bent out of shape pretty badly immediately after that second pass.
I don't know how rapidly those fighters dump fuel, but it doesn't seem impossible to me that just getting whacked with a literal ton of jet fuel might do a propeller a lot of harm.
Just to play devil's advocate. The video does not show an actual collision. Also, how do we know the video of the bent propeller was from the same drone soon after the Russian jet got close and dumped the fuel? I can't tell whether the background of the clouds and so forth is identical or close enough to the same background to know whether it is old stock video or not. How can one tell? The drone needs to be enhanced to show the actual collision; a camera from underneath probably is not going to show the collision.
Unless I am missing something, these drones seem very weak in regards to combat with a typical jet fighter. I assume that the drone is slow , so pretty much any jet fighter can catch up to it. I assume that it can't go to such a high elevation that a typical fighter can go to the same elevation. So, seems like pretty much any fighter jet could take it out; whether that be with ordinanace, dumping of fuel or an "accidental" collision. Perhaps the US needs to escort the drone with a fighter jet or 2 to protect it or at least modify the drone to show an actual collision. (Not sure whether Russia would care whether the actual collision could be captured. I suspect that they will keep doing this to drones in the area. Curious what is capture by the drone that can't be captured from satellite. Perhaps radio waves.
I am curious whether even with a bent propellor the drone could have gotten farther away from the conflict zone to be easier to recover by the US. Perhaps, they felt it was risky because it would have to go over or near populated areas. I would think Russia is likely to recover the drone, which seems like a loss.
The bent propeller blade at for example 1:39 is significantly different in appearance than other propeller blades around the same time, indicating that it's not a camera artifact.
46 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadIs there a point to this hypothetical besides trying to garner sympathy for Russia and their war?
"Patience" isn't an accurate characterization of what's happening here. Of course Russia would be delighted to shoot down those drones, or any manned reconnaissance aircraft in the area as well. They refrain from doing this because there would be unwelcome consequences, not because they're carefully observing some law or principle.
You can certainly tweak your strained hypothetical in such a way that the US would be bound by similar constraints. (that's not even difficult, it's just a matter of examining the hypothetical a little more closely - imagine how much would have gone wrong for the United States military in order for it to even be in a real war with Mexico) It's just a matter of hypotheticals like this not being very useful.
imagine how much would have gone wrong
That’s funny because just days ago some US congressmen have demanded (CW: euphemisms) the “authorization” of “military force” against “the cartels”: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/9/mexicos-president-sl...
Now, invading Mexico is still a remote prospect at this point, but if you think the US wouldn’t “defend their interests” there, you’d better read up on the Monroe Doctrine and 19th and 20th century history of the Americas.
Why do you think so?
Also, do you really think the Russians scramble their strategic bombers to Alaska because it is next to their borders? They don't do the same to China or North Korea.
DPRK does in fact have an overtly stated nuclear first strike policy.
What kinds of deception are up to the people who do this for a full time job. (If it was me I would send two of our drones, one to stand off a bit and record video, then the other drone would attempt to 'mate' the Russian drone midair.)
But that's just me.
There are actual political scientists writing studies on Russian airspace violations.
The drone was not 24 miles from the Russian coast. It was 75 miles southwest of Crimea, which is the Ukranian coast. The Russian jets were very very far away from home, they weren't in any way protecting Russian airspace.
When Russians violate airspace (like they often do in Europe) or come dangerously close to doing so in the USA, they are intercepted by fighter jets and asked to leave. Dropping fuel on their planes and flying like an idiot and then lying about it is generally not part of the NATO response.
Five years from now the drone will be constantly evaluating collision probabilities: “Probability of collision 80%. Take evasive maneuvers.”
See the closing paragraph of this article:
Mary Ellen O’Connell, a Notre Dame Law School professor and expert on international law and the use of force, noted that by dumping fuel and downing the drone, the Russian pilot was “further polluting the fragile Black Sea”, but she noted the US had not called the interception “unlawful”.
“In all likelihood the Reaper was conducting surveillance for Ukraine. Under the laws of armed conflict Russia may disrupt such assistance,” O’Connell said.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/14/russian-figh....
Unless I am missing something, these drones seem very weak in regards to combat with a typical jet fighter. I assume that the drone is slow , so pretty much any jet fighter can catch up to it. I assume that it can't go to such a high elevation that a typical fighter can go to the same elevation. So, seems like pretty much any fighter jet could take it out; whether that be with ordinanace, dumping of fuel or an "accidental" collision. Perhaps the US needs to escort the drone with a fighter jet or 2 to protect it or at least modify the drone to show an actual collision. (Not sure whether Russia would care whether the actual collision could be captured. I suspect that they will keep doing this to drones in the area. Curious what is capture by the drone that can't be captured from satellite. Perhaps radio waves.
I am curious whether even with a bent propellor the drone could have gotten farther away from the conflict zone to be easier to recover by the US. Perhaps, they felt it was risky because it would have to go over or near populated areas. I would think Russia is likely to recover the drone, which seems like a loss.