No, that was half a world away on the eastern side of the then USSR (near Kamchatka) and the US had been provoking them in that and other areas for some time prior - not that it in any way excuses an air-to-air attack on a well lit civvie aircraft, but brinksmanship had been actively pursued and this had somewhat shortened the odds of an tragic error occurring.
Besides the horror/terror of the attack, such incidents like are also unbelievably hard on families of deceased.
Six RPT jets shot down by various militaries since 1973.
MH17 crash: The terrible history of passenger planes getting shot out of the sky
In this case Malaysian had chosen to fly (albeit legally) where others had taken a more prudent approach in avoiding the area. MH had probably done this for economic (short-cut fuel saving) reasons over which the US litigation lawyers will no doubt have a field day.
And yes sheerluck, it could well be the end of MH (unless their govt carries it through).
Further to your post Pickles, the reported weapon (Buk) would be horrifically effective on a civilian aircraft.
Continuous-rod warhead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
						
					 
					
					 Originally Posted by juddy
 Originally Posted by juddy
					
 
				
				
				
					 Reply With Quote
  Reply With Quote 
						
					 
						
					
 
						
					 , not even a reprimand, let alone a murder charge.
, not even a reprimand, let alone a murder charge.
				 
						
					
 
				 
						
					 
						
					


Bookmarks