Just a Random Fly By

it's amazing How these things Work

kirra wrote:it's amazing How these things Work

Kirra, are you mental? You've given all the MP terrorists access to the secrets behind the F15! Now Nelson's gonna build one in his basement and do a fly-by over your house!

Everyone interested in this thread will surely enjoy this movie...

Richard Radcliffe wrote: Kirra, are you mental? You've given all the MP terrorists access to the secrets behind the F15! Now Nelson's gonna build one in his basement and do a fly-by over your house!

OH -so you did have to quote me now I can't delete..THIS IS NOW ALL YOUR FAULT RICH..!!!! - I'll bet you never hear those words :)~

phewww ~ just realized Mark doesn't know where I live

Beagle wrote:Everyone interested in this thread will surely enjoy this movie...

not *everyone* -I think this already debuted a few wks back

F-15's don't kill people,

People kill people.

When F-15's are outlawed, then only outlaws will have F-15's.

They can take my F-15 when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

BTW, I seriously doubt it was an F-15, probably an F-18, possibly a 22; if it had a single tail it was an F-16. Regardless, displays of raw power like that are exhilarating.

What I'm amazed at though with 4 pages in less than 10 hours is no mention of drones. We have entered a whole new paradigm in just the last 3 years, fighter pilots are becoming obsolete. Drones are now far more deadly, the operator can be a videogaming 19 year old in Nebraska.

Mike Lane wrote:When F-15's are outlawed, then only outlaws will have F-15's. They can take my F-15 when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. BTW, I seriously doubt it was an F-15, probably an F-18, possibly a 22; if it had a single tail it was an F-16. Regardless, displays of raw power like that are exhilarating.

lol - you cr*ck me up

raw power = exhilerating = yes

I just had a friend tell me a similar plane buzzed him (and friends) on Sunday on Longs peak. He said it looked like a retired military jet. Same basic story though, he said it couldn't have been more than 100 feet from the top.

It's obviously Red Dawn all over again.

James M Schroeder wrote: Ken, I'm not generally a big fan of internet defintions or dictionary defintions (it's the philosophy major in me), but I guess I'll fight fire with fire... From Wikipedia: Deterrence is a strategy by which governments threaten an immense retaliation if attacked, such that aggressors are deterred if they do not wish to suffer great damage as a result of an aggressive action. Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), conventional weapons strength, economic sanctions, or any combination of these can be used as deterrents. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a form of this strategy, which came to prominence during the Cold War when it was used by the US to characterize relations between the United States and Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union did not in fact adhere to MAD and was prepared to fight a full scale nuclear and conventional war. Deterrence by denial is a strategy whereby a government builds up or maintains defense and intelligence systems with the purported aim of neutralizing or mitigating attacks. Aggressors are deterred if they choose not to act, perceiving the cost of their action to be too high in relation to its likely success. (Emphasis Mine) and you can find the "article" here. My point is not so much what I quoted, but that one can find anything one wants on the internet to support one's position. In a nutshell my grand point is that those planes (and others like them) by their existence alone do a great deal of defending this nation. They would do so if they never fired a shot in anger.

Your argument would be sound if we were discussion deterrence, but we're not. We are discussing the intended purpose of fighter jets.

Mike Lane wrote:BTW, I seriously doubt it was an F-15, probably an F-18, possibly a 22; if it had a single tail it was an F-16.

Looks like a whole wing of F-15s at Mountain Home, AFB by glancing at the website. Pretty easy to pick out due to their size and tail configuration. Probably an F-15.

Sounds way cool to have had that experience, thanks for sharing rth.

Jonas D'Andrea wrote: Looks like a whole wing of F-15s at Mountain Home, AFB by glancing at the website. Pretty easy to pick out due to their size and tail configuration. Probably an F-15. Sounds way cool to have had that experience, thanks for sharing rth.

I'll buy that. I thought they had pretty much retired them by now.

Ken Cangi wrote: Your argument would be sound if we were discussion deterrence, but we're not. We are discussion the intended purpose of fighter jets.

And I say their main purpose is deterrence, how is my argument not sound?

The number of conflicts that the US Military (fighter jets included) has deterred is far greater than the number it has participated in. Without a military or with a significantly smaller military this nation would either be involved in far more military conflicts or we would have been overrun decades ago. This is fact. I'm still not sure how you can argue against this.

James M Schroeder wrote: And I say their main purpose is deterrence, how is my argument not sound?

Because it's not. The intended purpose of fighter jets is to destroy enemy aircraft - i.e., kill the opponent. That is clearly stated in the text. Therefore, it logically follows that deterrence is an ancillary purpose - not the main one.

Unless you can present historical - not philosophical - evidence to refute the intended purpose of fighter planes, as documented in the historical text, then I believe that my argument stands.

We can keep this in play if you'd like, although it looks like we're at am impasse.

My most impressive encounter with a fighter was during the 84 International Air Show, in Florida. After the guests had left, I was shooting for Gannett News, and I was able to convince the grounds officials to let me shoot a flyby from a cherry picker next the the runway. They actually called the maneuver a carrier break. I was up in this bucket, about twenty feet above the ground, ready to pan this shot when he passed by me. I had no idea what to expect, and I got schooled.

This Skyhawk came in so fast and low that he knocked me on my ass in the cherry picker bucket, and I slammed my camera, snapping the lens mount. It was bad enough that I broke my lens, missed the shot, and got the stink knocked out of me, but when I got back on the ground, all of the Blue Angels pilots, who were standing there watching and laughing their assess off. Never try to pan a jet going past you at 400 mph. It doesn't work.

Ken Cangi wrote: Because it's not. The intended purpose of fighter jets is to destroy enemy aircraft - i.e., kill the opponent. That is clearly stated in the text. Therefore, it logically follows that deterrence is an ancillary purpose - not the main one. Unless you can present historical - not philosophical - evidence to refute the intended purpose of fighter planes, as documented in the historical text, then I believe that my argument stands.

I hardly think Wikipedia and Answers.com qualify as "the historical text". Further, the greatest truths are found in Philosophical (deductive) reasoning. Historical evidence is far weaker than philosophical evidence, because historical evidence is subject to the varying perceptions of its authors, genuine philosophical evidence is based on sound premises and infallible inference, history is merely the opinion of those writing it.

I'll state my position again, and ask you to find a flaw in its reason:

US airpower through its sheer existence protects the US far more than the actual implementation of US airpower, such that the main purpose of the US having an extremely lethal amount of airpower is the deterrence of direct attacks on the US.

Further I grant that when we build military aircraft, they are built to destroy things (people, buildings, vehicles, etc.), but the main reason we build them that way is that would not be an effective deterrent to attacks on this country otherwise. These aircraft are simply not built for the main purpose of looking for a fight. The problem you're having in understanding my point is that no one writes newspaper articles about the hundreds (probably hundreds of thousands) of would be attacks that never happen, or are never even conceived of because it would be ludicrous to do so against a vastly superior military power like the US.

Stop for a second and imagine that the US didn't have this kind of military power; now imagine how many more attacks we would endure. You can't go to a website to find this data Ken, because they don't make up statistics on what might have happened (they only make up statistics on things that have happened and apparently they're quite good at fooling even intelligent people into believing those statistics mean something) had things been another way. I can't go to Wikipedia or Answers.com and look for a list of all of the things that could have happened in an alternative history. Which is why your argument is flawed, there is only one history, and that history is directly influenced by the deterrence offered by the military might of the US. Thinking things wouldn't be different without that deterrence is a gross error in reasoning.

Beagle wrote:I can only imagine what it would feel like on the streets of Baghdad right now if two fighter jets flew right over your head, I'm sure I wouldn't be cheering.

The purpose of fighter planes (military in general), is fairly silly to argue, they are in fact for desteroying objects, whether human or inanimate, and thus, this pissing war is created on whos is bigger and better. Standard schoolyard bully shit. If I am bigger, stronger, and can cause more damage, you should fear me. And it works. Howevr, it only works because we fear getting our asses kicked. I just so happens that our military is the big bully, and the majority of the world is scared of it. And yes it does fuck shit up, fairly efficiently. Last I check it hasn't protected me from shit in my life! All I have seen it do is invade other countries, inforcing it's will and the promise of democracy, and capitalism. Is that right! No.

Beagle, brings up a good point on thoughts. We sit here thinking we are safe, but no one thinks of what the others in other countries think. What would it be like to be invaded by us? We think just becuase we are on the bully's side we are better, and deserve it, and should thank our government for it. It was one thing back in the day when rifles, and canons, where the top notch weaponry. But now, what if our superior gov't turned on us. No civilian militia can stand up to what we have amassed, not even a chance. Who here has night vision for one? Granted war is inherant in every level of history, but it is scary to think of what this machine our tax dollars pays for can do. And I may be out of line, but the scariest part is the troops are trained to follow orders at all costs. And now we have drones that can fly missions on there own. F- this shit. It is scary. However, I do believe our troops will defend us if need be, and I thank them for that.

rth wrote:I know you may not believe me - and I might not believe it either had I not seen it myself, but it happened. Tuesday June 22, I was at the upper saddle of the Grand Teton gearing up for the climb with my group of six, when we heard a huge roaring sound then from the East came an F-15 Airforce Jet. The jet was on a hard banking maneuver splitting the Grand and the Enclosure peaks. So far, you may believe me, what you might not believe, and that is up to you is that the pilots maneuver was within 50 to 80 feet of the upper saddle tilted on his right side. As soon as he cleared the saddle he continued his role and descended down into the canyon - North of the Grand I think. Four or five seconds and it was out of sight. My brother yelled out, "Wow, that was awesome, I don't even have to go to the top now, that just made my whole trip." And that it did. We still went to the top, weathered out a thunderstorm with rain and ping-pong hail balls, clung to boulders just below the needle during the flash flood that followed. Les Trois Teton

Sounds like a cool bonus to your day, thanks for sharing your story, I kind of lost track of what everyone else in here is talking about. I think there is a Vocabulary lesson going on or something like that.

I would of been psyched to see that from your perspective. On another note, I wonder how much it costs an hour for one of those rigs to fly for fun on our tax dollars. I know those guys are having a blast and I don't blame them for taking advantage of the opportunity to joy ride in those machines, I would too if I could.

James M Schroeder wrote:I hardly think Wikipedia and Answers.com qualify as "the historical text". Further, the greatest truths are found in Philosophical (deductive) reasoning. Historical evidence is far weaker than philosophical evidence, because historical evidence is subject to the varying perceptions of its authors, genuine philosophical evidence is based on sound premises and infallible inference, history is merely the opinion of those writing it.

Chose your text. You can find similar explanations in any number of text, encyclopedias, etc.. War has been documented since ancient times, and history continually shows and tells us that war machines are invented to win wars – not avoid them. At some point you have to have faith in the scholarship.

Not to be didactic, but philosophical reasoning is inductive, and, although based on logical conclusion, does not insure its truth. If you and I invent something for a specifically intended purpose, no amount of philosophical reasoning to the contrary is going to chance the truth about why we invented it.

James M Schroeder wrote: Further I grant that when we build military aircraft, they are built to destroy things (people, buildings, vehicles, etc.), but the main reason we build them that way is that would not be an effective deterrent to attacks on this country otherwise. These aircraft are simply not built for the main purpose of looking for a fight. The problem you're having in understanding my point is that no one writes newspaper articles about the hundreds (probably hundreds of thousands) of would be attacks that never happen, or are never even conceived of because it would be ludicrous to do so against a vastly superior military power like the US.

I am having no problem understanding your point. Again, it is a different point. And I did not say that they are built for the purpose of looking for a fight. They are built to destroy opposing enemy aircraft et al.

James wrote: I'll state my position again, and ask you to find a flaw in its reason:

US airpower through its sheer existence protects the US far more than the actual implementation of US airpower, such that the main purpose of the US having an extremely lethal amount of airpower is the deterrence of direct attacks on the US.

Is this your statement? If not, please list the source.

James M Schroeder wrote: Stop for a second and imagine that the US didn't have this kind of military power; now imagine how many more attacks we would endure. You can't go to a website to find this data Ken, because they don't make up statistics on what might have happened (they only make up statistics on things that have happened and apparently they're quite good at fooling even intelligent people into believing those statistics mean something) had things been another way. I can't go to Wikipedia or Answers.com and look for a list of all of the things that could have happened in an alternative history. Which is why your argument is flawed, there is only one history, and that history is directly influenced by the deterrence offered by the military might of the US. Thinking things wouldn't be different without that deterrence is a gross error in reasoning.

Part of this last paragraph sounds a bit condescending, although I will assume that you did not intend it to be. Moreover, it is a red herring.

Sorry, I couldn't get your one comments to quote, so I highlighted it.

Hank Caylor wrote:P.S.- I thought the Lebowski quote could kill ANYTHING!

I'll shove this pistol up your ass and pull the trigger 'til it goes 'click!'

Ken Cangi wrote: Chose your text. You can find similar explanations in any number of text, encyclopedias, etc.. War has been documented since ancient times, and history continually shows and tells us that war machines are invented to win wars – not avoid them. At some point you have to have faith in the scholarship. Not to be didactic, but philosophical reasoning is inductive, and, although based on logical conclusion, does not insure its truth. If you and I invent something for a specifically intended purpose, no amount of philosophical reasoning to the contrary is going to chance the truth about why we invented it. I am having no problem understanding your point. Again, it is a different point. And I did not say that they are built for the purpose of looking for a fight. They are built to destroy opposing enemy aircraft et al. James wrote: I'll state my position again, and ask you to find a flaw in its reason: US airpower through its sheer existence protects the US far more than the actual implementation of US airpower, such that the main purpose of the US having an extremely lethal amount of airpower is the deterrence of direct attacks on the US. Is this your statement? If not, please list the source. Part of this last paragraph sounds a bit condescending, although I will assume that you did not intend it to be. Moreover, it is a red herring. Sorry, I couldn't get your one comments to quote, so I highlighted it.

Ken,

Sorry if I sounded condescending in my last paragraph, you are correct that was not my intent.

You often refer to "the scholarship" in discussions on this page and I wonder what you mean by that.

Do you mean the writings of academics? If so then I'm sure there is as lively a debate in the academic community as there is here, leading to "scholarship" and "historical text" on both sides of the argument, all of equally bad repute. In an evironment where people must "publish or perish" there is bound to be vast amounts of low quality "research" produced simply in the name of keeping one's job, not the interest of truth.

The words that you highlighted in your last post are mine and mine alone, they were italicized because I had written them in an earlier post in this discussion and I wanted to set them apart somehow.

Also asking for a source on them does not point to any flaws in them, nor would revealing the source to be me, Ghandi or Hitler for that matter. The words are the words, and they stand on their own. Argue the logic and not the man.

James M Schroeder wrote: Ken, Sorry if I sounded condescending in my last paragraph, you are correct that was not my intent. You often refer to "the scholarship" in discussions on this page and I wonder what you mean by that. Do you mean the writings of academics? If so then I'm sure there is as lively a debate in the academic community as there is here, leading to "scholarship" and "historical text" on both sides of the argument, all of equally bad repute. In an evironment where people must "publish or perish" there is bound to be vast amounts of low quality "research" produced simply in the name of keeping one's job, not the interest of truth. The words that you highlighted in your last post are mine and mine alone, they were italicized because I had written them in an earlier post in this discussion and I wanted to set them apart somehow. Also asking for a source on them does not point to any flaws in them, nor would revealing the source to be me, Ghandi or Hitler for that matter. The words are the words, and they stand on their own. Argue the logic and not the man.

You are running me around in circles again, James. I am not arguing the man. I asked for the source because it contradicts all of the documented scholarship. You did not invent the fighter aircraft, not are you connected with those who did. This is relevant because your comment differs from the historical explanations.

I am no stranger to debate - both academically and recreationally. This is not a philosophical argument. We are talking about the intended purpose of fighter jets. I answered your last post sentence by sentence, and I proposed questions for you, none of which you addressed specifically. You keep asking me to dispute your philosophical logic, which, although sound, has nothing to do with the subject (Why were fighter planes invented?).

DrCindie wrote: It's obviously Red Dawn all over again.

Well I think this is the point that I'm trying to get across, even though we were attacked, it's definitely not a Red Dawn. We maintain our airspace, even though we will most certainly face another attack that may make 9-11 pale in comparison.

As Ken pointed out, our defenses are reactionary. While the threat to us may go for winning media coverage, they won't take a homeland position away from us. I think though looking at military (& military contractors) as a preventative measure as to an answer for a potential attack is more tantamount at interfering with our liberty. I believe the movie line was using the armed forces in this case was a broadsword attempt and would end in far worse results. So I still would keep our defense system as reactionary.

Am reading an interesting Time article about our involvement in Afghanistan; our country's foreign policy is in a crossroads, again; which the military complex will flail at another "answer".