Just a Random Fly By

Right but effectually they were created for the same purpose, killing the enemy. One is more effective in mass killing than the other but at this period in time that is no longer it's use. One could argue that if a nuke does fall into the wrong hands then it will kill but since a nuke hasn't killed in over 50 years its purpose no longer serves killing but rather peace through fear of use.

A jet still kills but many argue less have to die because of the tool and the fear it invokes. Surely less of our soldiers die because of the technology we possess.

One way or another we are all very lucky to be sitting on this side of the fence whether you like the jet or not it does preserve your cushy life for now.

Wiki:

"A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft, as opposed to a bomber, which is designed primarily to attack ground targets by dropping bombs. Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and maneuverable. Fighter aircraft are the primary means by which armed forces gain air superiority. At least since World War II, air superiority has been a component of victory in most modern warfare, particularly conventional warfare between regular armies (as opposed to guerrilla warfare), and fighters' acquisition and maintenance represent a very substantial proportion of military budgets in modern militaries."

Answers.com:

"Fighters are aircraft intended to win air superiority by destroying enemy aircraft. The term is generally applied to those aircraft designed to have sufficient performance to destroy enemy aircraft. However, as a result of the threat posed by strategic bombers during and after World War II—and particularly after the development of atomic weaponry—a specialized class of fighter, called the interceptor, was developed specifically to counter the bomber threat. Most fighters are small single seat aircraft powered by one or two engines. Interceptors, however, typically have more than one crewman, and tend to be larger and heavier, with longer range. Another category of fighter is the fighter‐bomber, which is capable of participating in the air superiority war, but then, when air superiority is no longer an issue, is capable of being applied as a ground attack airplane. Over time, from World War I to the present, the fighter has gone from a 70 mph frail open‐cockpit wood‐and‐fabric airplane to a Mach 2+ jet‐propelled aircraft capable of carrying a sophisticated array of electronics and precision weapons."

Wiki:

"The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle is an all-weather tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat. It was developed for the U.S. Air Force, and first flew in July 1972. The F-15E Strike Eagle derivative is an all-weather strike fighter that entered service in 1989. The U.S. Air Force plans to keep the F-15 in service until 2025.[1]"

Ken Cangi wrote: A few things here, James: First, thank you for qualifying, although it is not necessary for you to do so. You have shown a clear sense of fairness in recent discussions, and I don’t for a moment believe that you are being an ass. I enjoy debating you. You seem like a class act. To address your fighter jet premise and response to Richard, I don’t believe that Richard is confusing anything. I feel you are not thinking this through. Your assertion that the primary purpose of these aircraft is for prevention presumes that no one would ever challenge them. We all know that this isn’t true, and history points to centuries of examples that back that up. Consequently, if we know that our firepower will eventually be challenged, then we also know that we will eventually utilize it. When we do, it will be for one primary reason, which is to destroy (kill) our opponents. And, yes, I do feel that our administration has been playing sovereign leader for the last 7.5 years. What is taking place in Iraq has nothing to do with 9-11. Moreover, Iraq’s citizens and leaders want us to leave, and we won’t. We won’t leave, because we want control of the oil. So if they want us to leave, and we won’t, then what is their alternative, other than to submit to U.S. rule, or rise up against us, the results of which would be palpable? P.S. for clarity, When I said centuries of examples, I meant examples of force being challenged - not specifically our fighter jets.

I'm sure this will open up a few cans of worms, but what the heck.

First on the deterrence bit. While yes I'm sure our fighter jets might invoke a certain "my dog is bigger than your mentality" style pissing match among a few countries, I think for the most part they do a pretty good job of keeping other military powers off our shores. In other words I think the number of people, countries etc. deterred by the presence of the American air superioirity is far greater than the number provoked.

Also to say that something is a deterrent is not to say that it will "no one would ever challenge them", but to say that the existence of that thing lowers the net number of events attempting to be deterred. It seems to me that you're implying that we would suffer fewer attacks on our country if we didn't have an air force, and if that's how you feel I don't have any logic or numbers that will convince you otherwise.

I won't argue with you about the Bush administration, I think they're at best idiots and at worst intetionally evil.

I will however play devil's advocate on the "war for oil" bit. One could argue that due to our gross inadequacy as a country in moving to alternative energy sources, securing some of the largest oil reserves (and attempting to bring stability to the region) in the world could be an action meant to promote the well being of the nation. I'm certainly not saying we've had any success in this endeavor, nor am I saying it was the best solution (or even a good one at that), I'm simply saying there is/was a not entirely unreasonable argument to be made.

James M Schroeder wrote: I'm sure this will open up a few cans of worms, but what the heck. First on the deterrence bit. While yes I'm sure our fighter jets might invoke a certain "my dog is bigger than your mentality" style pissing match among a few countries, I think for the most part they do a pretty good job of keeping other military powers off our shores.

Where were they on 9-11?

The first air strike on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and our air force was nowhere to be found.

Oh, that's right; the entire U.S air defense was out on training exercises. That's another can of worms.

Sorry, James, but you are way off.

Not So Famous Old Dude wrote: You can't take offense when your thread gets hijacked. Everything actually worth reading gets hijacked eventually. It's the sign of a good post - take it as a compliment. :)

"that's right, nobody fucks with the Jesus"!

Jeff Barnow wrote: One way or another we are all very lucky to be sitting on this side of the fence whether you like the jet or not it does preserve your cushy life for now.

This is the kind of statement that robs any credibility people gain through otherwise reasonable comments. As if soldiers are really dying so that I can drink beer and climb. That's is just absurd. No soliders are dying for our personal freedom in the US. The last time that was happening was WWII and then we had a draft, many volunteered for service, and the rest of the civilians had to ration and otherwise sacrifice to defend our country from a potentially existential threat. But those days are long over - most of those people are now dead or in the last 10 years of their lives. So, those kinds of US soldiers don't even exist right now, and no US soliders are dying so that US citizens can sleep peacefully at night. That all sounds dramatic and touching, but it's just not true.

Now if you want to argue that our soliders are dying to protect Iraqi personal freedom I might be able to grant you a tiny bit of validity there. If things finally resolve themselves over there, I may grant you quite a lot of validity. But right now, even that's not looking too good.

Ah, James, a page of posts "flew" by, so I missed your question.

The IMCC is the Industrial Military Congressional Complex, first termed by Dwight, and more notably, further perpetuated by us after the end of the cold war -- instead of putting a vested interest and shifting our budgetary might in education & charitable work for foreign policy, we simply went further into defense & continued to build our military complex.

Hi rth ~ I like your thread topic and share your sentiment. Just for the sheer sound, the power & the energy that these planes have when they fly-by is amazing and always stops me to look from wherever I am. politics & pain aside ~ I know you meant what you said for face-value and to share. Just know that your not alone, thanks for sharin' your experience --

those truly are amazing to watch. ...

now if we could only get out cell-phones to work properly ~ :)

WE MADE CALLS FROM THE SUMMIT !!!

Ken Cangi wrote: Where were they on 9-11? The first air strike on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and our air force was nowhere to be found. Oh, that's right; the entire U.S air defense was out on training exercises. Sorry, James, but you are way off.

Whoa, Ken, they flew the CAP; they just got bad info -- how can you target 1000s of civi aircraft?? I mean which ones are the bad ones? They didn't know. The order was given to shoot down, but military decided against using it as they couldn't possibly go around shooting down every passenger jet they saw.

You can only open them. You can't dictate the direction in which they will eventually travel. Be happy that it is a friendly,

intelligent discussion.

?????

Mark Nelson wrote: Whoa, Ken, they flew the CAP; they just got bad info -- how can you target 1000s of civi aircraft?? I mean which ones are the bad ones? They didn't know. The order was given to shoot down, but military decided against using it as they couldn't possibly go around shooting down every passenger jet they saw.

Do your homework, Mark.

Ken Cangi wrote:Wiki: "A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft, as opposed to a bomber, which is designed primarily to attack ground targets by dropping bombs. Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and maneuverable. Fighter aircraft are the primary means by which armed forces gain air superiority. At least since World War II, air superiority has been a component of victory in most modern warfare, particularly conventional warfare between regular armies (as opposed to guerrilla warfare), and fighters' acquisition and maintenance represent a very substantial proportion of military budgets in modern militaries." Answers.com: "Fighters are aircraft intended to win air superiority by destroying enemy aircraft. The term is generally applied to those aircraft designed to have sufficient performance to destroy enemy aircraft. However, as a result of the threat posed by strategic bombers during and after World War II¡ªand particularly after the development of atomic weaponry¡ªa specialized class of fighter, called the interceptor, was developed specifically to counter the bomber threat. Most fighters are small single seat aircraft powered by one or two engines. Interceptors, however, typically have more than one crewman, and tend to be larger and heavier, with longer range. Another category of fighter is the fighter©\bomber, which is capable of participating in the air superiority war, but then, when air superiority is no longer an issue, is capable of being applied as a ground attack airplane. Over time, from World War I to the present, the fighter has gone from a 70 mph frail open©\cockpit wood©\and©\fabric airplane to a Mach 2+ jet©\propelled aircraft capable of carrying a sophisticated array of electronics and precision weapons." Wiki: "The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle is an all-weather tactical fighter designed to gain and maintain air superiority in aerial combat. It was developed for the U.S. Air Force, and first flew in July 1972. The F-15E Strike Eagle derivative is an all-weather strike fighter that entered service in 1989. The U.S. Air Force plans to keep the F-15 in service until 2025.[1]"

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.

Ken Cangi wrote: Do your homework, Mark.

??

rth wrote: intelligent discussion. ?????

That's a pretty arrogant statement. Please elaborate.

Mark Nelson wrote: ??

They knew that one had hit that tower, and that specific others where incommunicado and off course, yet no fighters were deployed within reasonable time frame.

And our entire fleet at Pearl Harbor got hit with it's pant down. So where are our fighters so effective at keeping others off of our shores. Two times we were attacked, and both times we weren't ready for.

Ken Cangi wrote: Do your homework, Mark.

Ken, I have a baby brother doing his third tour in Iraq in as many years. Mark has info that does not end up on the internet from his brother who is very stationed. Let's keep this civil and cool (not saying anyone isn't),,,,,,,, but, there are many sides to something like this.

P.S.- I thought the Lebowski quote could kill ANYTHING!

rth wrote:WE MADE CALLS FROM THE SUMMIT !!!

Haha Cool beans ~o~o~o~ (now if I could only get service between golden & boulder on 93)

...............

Left

Blank

Intentionally

Hank Caylor wrote: Ken, I have a baby brother doing his third tour in Iraq in as many years. Mark has info that does not end up on the internet from his brother who is very stationed. Let's keep this civil and cool (not sayinig anyone isn't),,,,,,,, but, there are many sides to something like this. P.S.- I thought the Lebowski quote could kill ANYTHING!

This is civil, Hank. It is a discussion about airplanes and their roles in combat. Sorry, Hank, but I can't side with you on this one, with all due respect. This has nothing to do with your brother, and I doubt anyone here, myself included, doesn't appreciate that he is fighting for something that he believes in.

Ken Cangi wrote:Where were they on 9-11? The first air strike on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and our air force was nowhere to be found. Oh, that's right; the entire U.S air defense was out on training exercises. That's another can of worms. Sorry, James, but you are way off.

Ken,

Yes where were they on 9-11?, good question, but let's analyze it a bit.

How do you deter someone intent on dying for their cause? Well you don't unless you can invalidate their cause in their eyes.

Most importantly we are not arguing whether F15s and the like deter everyone, that would be ludicrous. They are built to deter a whole bunch of people, but nothing could possibly deter everyone. I'm still not sure what it is that you're arguing against.

Here is what I am arguing for:

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.

If you disagree with that statement that's fine, but let's argue one thing at a time.

Ken Cangi wrote: They knew that one had hit that tower, and that specific others where incommunicado and off course, yet no fighters were deployed within reasonable time frame. And our entire fleet at Pearl Harbor got hit with it's pant down. So where are our fighters so effective at keeping others off of our shores. Two times we were attacked, and both times we weren't ready for.

This is not the point, the point is how many times weren't we attacked?