Obama Threatened To Thwart Israeli Preemptive Attack On Iran?

[CMike]

Obama would regain a lot of my respect if this turned out to be true.

I am sure the Iranians and their supporters would be very grateful.

If Israel wanted to fly via Iraq into Iran, I doubt the US would be able to stop them.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am sure the Iranians and their supporters would be very grateful.

I'm not so sure myself. But they should. So should pretty much everyone, actually.

If Israel wanted to fly via Iraq into Iran, I doubt the US would be able to stop them.

Then maybe Israel should not exist.

 

[CMike]

I'm not so sure myself. But they should. So should pretty much everyone, actually.




Then maybe Israel should not exist.

Maybe you shouldn't exist?

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe you shouldn't exist?

Actually I should not exist, but that is not the matter here, now is it?

 

[CMike]

Actually I should not exist, but that is not the matter here, now is it?

But you do.

 

[LuisDantas]

But you do.

Feel free to call for my termination if I threaten to destroy world peace, or to begin a potentially final world conflict.

 

[Revoltingest]

I doubt that it was stated that explicitly, but Obama may have done what "H.W." did and not be willing to give the IDF the friend/foe code, which would put Israeli planes at risk of getting shot down by our planes.

I presumed that it would have been more nuanced than conveyed by the title of a dubious article.

 

[columbus]

Has the US ever had members of the military refuse to carry out the orders they were given?

Yes.
I remember some military guy refusing to deploy to Afghanistan because he did not believe that Obama was the legitimate president. He went when W sent him, but wouldn't redeploy under the new Commander-in-Chief Obama.

Tom

 

[esmith]

Without the friend/foe code they couldn't identify whom is out there and which side they're on without putting themselves at grave risk.

You statement doesn't make sense. If a pilot is going after another aircraft they will do so as long as that aircraft is not identified as friend by command and control. A fighter does not challenge they only respond to IFF (at least the last time I checked) Fighters use data links (mostly passive) to acquire situational awareness.

 

[esmith]

Yes.
I remember some military guy refusing to deploy to Afghanistan because he did not believe that Obama was the legitimate president. He went when W sent him, but wouldn't redeploy under the new Commander-in-Chief Obama.

Tom

that is only one person, I'm talking about fighter wings.

 

[metis]

You statement doesn't make sense. If a pilot is going after another aircraft they will do so as long as that aircraft is not identified as friend by command and control. A fighter does not challenge they only respond to IFF (at least the last time I checked) Fighters use data links (mostly passive) to acquire situational awareness.

This was not my idea but which was discussed by some military personnel familiar with this procedure back during "H.W.'s" tenure. Let me give you and example using a hypothetical situation whereas Israel launches strikes against Iran.

The radar we have today can often tell the difference between large and smaller aircraft, plus measure their velocity. If Israel attacks, we have to assume that Iranian jets will try and intercept them, and then the difficulty for us is to try and figure out which is which. This is why the friend/foe code was invented in the first place, and I listened to a former B-52 pilot talk about this many moons ago.

In a war situation, visual contact prior to possible engagement is unrealistic in today's day and age. Not only are our jets pretty much guided by computers at different locations, so is the firing of missile at other jets pretty much on the same system if it's engaged to do so. Visual contacts may make for good movies like "Top Gun", but that's simply not realistic.

 

[esmith]

This was not my idea but which was discussed by some military personnel familiar with this procedure back during "H.W.'s" tenure. Let me give you and example using a hypothetical situation whereas Israel launches strikes against Iran.

The radar we have today can often tell the difference between large and smaller aircraft, plus measure their velocity. If Israel attacks, we have to assume that Iranian jets will try and intercept them, and then the difficulty for us is to try and figure out which is which. This is why the friend/foe code was invented in the first place, and I listened to a former B-52 pilot talk about this many moons ago.

In a war situation, visual contact prior to possible engagement is unrealistic in today's day and age. Not only are our jets pretty much guided by computers at different locations, so is the firing of missile at other jets pretty much on the same system if it's engaged to do so. Visual contacts may make for good movies like "Top Gun", but that's simply not realistic.

I think you better stick to politics. You understanding of today's Air to Air capabilities are how should is fundamentally limited and flawed Yes today's AWACS are highly capable command and control aircraft and provide the necessary data links to fighter aircraft to identify friendly aircraft (Mode 4, & 5 IFF). No fighter aircraft are not "guided by computer", pilots fly the aircraft with data information from AWACS(Air force) or Hawkeye(Navy). Your assumption about "visual" contact is totally flawed. No pilot is going to limit his air to air loadout to BVR missiles. At the closure rate of modern aircraft a BVR fight will quickly turn into a dogfight where the AIM-9 and even guns are used. Yes, today's fighters still carry 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon. Now if you are really interested try F-15 vs F-16 Fighting Falcon - Difference and Comparison | Diffen now go to F-16 vs. F-18 - A Navy Test Pilot's Perspective
You will also notice in the articles the idea of the air-air knife fight and the idea that this is a mandatory training. The US Air Force learned their lesson in Vietnam that the idea of "dog fights" are still an art that pilots have to learn.

Now the above is just in response to your misunderstanding of my original contention.and in addition to your misinformation about air-to-air combat. First my contention was in response to the subject of the OP. This was that Obama would thwart a attack by Israel against Iran. The only way anyone could thwart an attack is to go after Israel's aircraft. I hypothesized that not all US pilots could agree with their orders and not attack Israel aircraft by using the plausible excuse that they could not find the Israel aircraft and to extend the hypotheses that they (US pilots) possibly get engaged with an Iranian aircraft in self-defense.

Now I'm not saying this is possibly, but if one thinks that Obama would order US aircraft to attack Israel aircraft one could also make the equal ridiculous scenario that I put forth.

 

[YmirGF]

Personally speaking, this story didn't pass the smell test, from the get go.

 

[metis]

I think you better stick to politics. You understanding of today's Air to Air capabilities are how should is fundamentally limited and flawed Yes today's AWACS are highly capable command and control aircraft and provide the necessary data links to fighter aircraft to identify friendly aircraft (Mode 4, & 5 IFF). No fighter aircraft are not "guided by computer", pilots fly the aircraft with data information from AWACS(Air force) or Hawkeye(Navy). Your assumption about "visual" contact is totally flawed. No pilot is going to limit his air to air loadout to BVR missiles. At the closure rate of modern aircraft a BVR fight will quickly turn into a dogfight where the AIM-9 and even guns are used. Yes, today's fighters still carry 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon. Now if you are really interested try F-15 vs F-16 Fighting Falcon - Difference and Comparison | Diffen now go to F-16 vs. F-18 - A Navy Test Pilot's Perspective
You will also notice in the articles the idea of the air-air knife fight and the idea that this is a mandatory training. The US Air Force learned their lesson in Vietnam that the idea of "dog fights" are still an art that pilots have to learn.

Now the above is just in response to your misunderstanding of my original contention.and in addition to your misinformation about air-to-air combat. First my contention was in response to the subject of the OP. This was that Obama would thwart a attack by Israel against Iran. The only way anyone could thwart an attack is to go after Israel's aircraft. I hypothesized that not all US pilots could agree with their orders and not attack Israel aircraft by using the plausible excuse that they could not find the Israel aircraft and to extend the hypotheses that they (US pilots) possibly get engaged with an Iranian aircraft in self-defense.

Now I'm not saying this is possibly, but if one thinks that Obama would order US aircraft to attack Israel aircraft one could also make the equal ridiculous scenario that I put forth.

Not to belabor the point, but my information came from both a B-52 pilot I knew and also listening to military experts back during the time of the liberation of Kuwait, so your argument is not with me but with them. These planes can literally fly themselves (one RAF jet actually landed itself when its pilot panicked and ejected), and their firing can be set on automatic. The friend/foe code has been well established as being used, so I have no clue where you're getting some of your "information" from.

 

[CMike]

Feel free to call for my termination if I threaten to destroy world peace, or to begin a potentially final world conflict.

Would you protect yourself if attacked if you could?

Do you take measures to protect your safety?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not to belabor the point, but my information came from both a B-52 pilot I knew and also listening to military experts back during the time of the liberation of Kuwait, so your argument is not with me but with them. These planes can literally fly themselves (one RAF jet actually landed itself when its pilot panicked and ejected), and their firing can be set on automatic. The friend/foe code has been well established as being used, so I have no clue where you're getting some of your "information" from.

The pilot is still the local decision maker (with authorization & larger objectives determined by superiors). Automation is there to enable & implement the decisions. We are a very long way both politically & technologically from autonomous weapons. You ain't seen nuthin yet....the face of war will change greatly in the next few decades.

 

[Iti oj]

Would you protect yourself if attacked if you could?

Do you take measures to protect your safety?

which is exactly what Palestine is doing too.

 

[metis]

The pilot is still the local decision maker (with authorization & larger objectives determined by superiors). Automation is there to enable & implement the decisions. We are a very long way both politically & technologically from autonomous weapons. You ain't seen nuthin yet....the face of war will change greatly in the next few decades.

Exactly.

 

[esmith]

Not to belabor the point, but my information came from both a B-52 pilot I knew and also listening to military experts back during the time of the liberation of Kuwait, so your argument is not with me but with them. These planes can literally fly themselves (one RAF jet actually landed itself when its pilot panicked and ejected), and their firing can be set on automatic. The friend/foe code has been well established as being used, so I have no clue where you're getting some of your "information" from.

I am not going to argue this with you since it appears that you have your mind made up. However, fighter aircraft CAN NOT automatically fire their air to air weapons It requires pilot interaction. Now you may have been confused with the aircraft in a CAS role. The only time a weapon can be released "automatically" is in the role of CAS when a bomb is the munition. I think you misunderstood your source.
The only weapons in the US inventory that can "automatically" engage a air target are deployed aboard US Navy ships and Patriot missile systems ashore . And these weapons systems must be placed in this mode by human action.

 

[metis]

The pilot is still the local decision maker (with authorization & larger objectives determined by superiors). Automation is there to enable & implement the decisions. We are a very long way both politically & technologically from autonomous weapons. You ain't seen nuthin yet....the face of war will change greatly in the next few decades.

We may be miscommunicating on the "automatic firing" part. Yes, of course it's the pilot that activates the system when authorized to do so or when it becomes clear it's needed (see my response to Revoltingest as an indication that I'm not just moving the goal-posts here), but what I have heard definitely more than once is that when it's activated by the pilot, what happens next pretty much takes care of itself unless the pilot deactivates it. Since this was information I heard many years ago (late 1960's and late 1990's), to what extent this may or may not be accurate I simply cannot say.