KY: Do you know if there are any rules for such "meetings" in international airspace or is it just left to the pilots to estimate and decide what is safe flying and what not? I'm sure there are general guidelines (as in "USAF/whatever intercept manual") such as coming to the left of the plane to be intercepted to signal intent and/or freq if not on standard etc... But as to the distances involved, maneouvres to get on his port side and who is responsible for what (like on the sea where more nimble or motor vehicle has to give way to sailing wessel or bigger ship etc...) as in "bomber must hold course and if breaking away do it to the starboard side" or "fighters responsibility is to keep distance and control movements not to fly into bigger plane"?
I'm asking because in the Cold war there were lots of intercept and goofing around from all sides and no real big collisions happened (or at least are not public knowledge
) and nowadays it seems everything is on the new more dangerous level (recent north Europe intercepts and intrusions over Baltic to UK airspace).
Yes there are internationally recognized intercept rules but these are generally applied to civilian aircraft. This guy was just shining his ass, flipping the bird in effect to our P-3. A real tough guy, since the p-3 doesn't shoot back.
As far as our fighters, there aren't any American fighter pilots I know of that wouldn't go toe to toe in a heartbeat with that guy. Most other countries really don't understand truly how high of a level of autonomy and individual skill we train to in the US. We get lots of training, and that training is dissected everytime. I have been in four hour debriefs for 5 minute fights. The F-15 is 100+ to nothin in aerial fights and is a great airplane, but it isn't because of the airplane.
In the Cold War we played hard but professionally with the respect that comes from MAD. There were some deaths but cooler heads prevailed to prevent escalation, and neither side doubted the others willingness to go all the way at any time if it looked necessary.
I think what you are seeing now is the natural result of how you are treated when you are perceived as being weak. You can have all the best hardware in the world but if any enemy perceives you lack the will you will be disrespected/crushed. International politics has much more in common with a kids playground than it does the curriculum at the Kennedy School. All that political theory, economic policy, international treaties, etc are worth exactly as much as you are respected, something the State Department wonks just don't get. I think some men have an intuitive understanding of this, and others never will.
We live in a society now where real men, those who don't want violence but can deal in it if necessary, are pushed aside as Neanderthals who aren't aren't smart enough to lead and are just to be used as tools of last resort. The policy wonks resent such men because deep down they fear them a little, which is the point. When men fear each other, or call it a healthy respect if you want, relationships remain peaceful. This is works with friends and enemies and is really the only true universal language. Putin for example, is our enemy but it isn't hard to imagine that he has had to put his money where his mouth is before.
We live in a violent world. The perception of strength carries far more weight in this world than platitudes and good intentions and words. The weak can comply, get punished, or become strong, just like on the playground. Our leadership taking direction and drawing on experiences from their protected ivory tower lives just refuse to accept that the exact same dynamics are at play now just as they were in the playground interactions they likely loathed.
This will only get worse. The current generation in school is being taught that basic self respect and defending yourself from an aggressor is an actual crime with schools actually reporting students to the police for such. Strong active boys must sit still all day, no rough housing, no adversarial play to release that energy nature gives us, in other words no expression at all of any testosterone based emotions or actions you will get detention and Ritalin. God help us when we try to draw leaders from this bunch.
It has been repeated and quoted and attributed to many men through the ages all the way back to Alexander the Great...it survives because it rings true in the struggles of men:
"An army of sheep lead by a lion is more to fear than than an army of lions led by a sheep"
What are we?
