American Military just as fanatical as the Japanese

donutface

They were sending a fighter pilot on a suicide mission!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2011/09/06/gIQAMpcODK_story.html

Sauve

I'm sure if you ask any frontline soldier for any country, I would guess that the majority of them are willing to give up their lives for the country when it comes down to it.
I think they'd be naive to enter the army in the first place if they didn't realise that death is quite possible.

Toby Take a Bow

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

I think they'd be naive to enter the army in the first place if they didn't realise that death is quite possible.

Japan's WWII army is often lambasted for being a bunch of nutcakes for having the above sentiment, though.

Freddie59

donutface wrote: »

They were sending a fighter pilot on a suicide mission!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2011/09/06/gIQAMpcODK_story.html

Old news. Why? Would you not do the same if Ireland was under attack by extremists?

Killer Pigeon

Yeah guys, let's kill ourselves to protect the livelihoods of the elites! BANZAI!!

/:rolleyes:

Sauve

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Japan's WWII army is often lambasted for being a bunch of nutcakes for having the above sentiment, though.

In fairness they were probably quite a bit more fanatical about it in Japan in WW11. I think modern day armies just have a more low-key approach to the whole thing.
They won't shout about it, but if it needs to be done they're willing to do it.

Napper Hawkins

Hmmm....Death BEFORE dishonour?

Exactly how much dishonour are we talking about here?

I, for one, would fellate a smurf.

Bonus points for whoever knows who I'm ripping off here.

Sauve

I don't think it's an issue of dishonour, more about being willing to die to protect your country/citizens.
Maybe I'm wrong...

davetherave

Shock horror!!!
A person who has taken an oath of allegiance to defend their country was willing to do that by any means necessary... What is the world coming to??

Einhard

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Japan's WWII army is often lambasted for being a bunch of nutcakes for having the above sentiment, though.

(whispers) Context.

MagicMarker

She could have just ejected before impact, simples.

Einhard

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Yeah guys, let's kill ourselves to protect the livelihoods of the elites! BANZAI!!

/:rolleyes:

Or to save the lives of possibly thousands of innocent civilians?

cocoshovel

Old news. Also whats your point?

partyatmygaff

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Japan's WWII army is often lambasted for being a bunch of nutcakes for having the above sentiment, though.

That's because the Japanese were aggressors in WW2. They weren't defending their country from anyone, they attacked the US and then went on organised suicide missions against the US Navy. When you consider they did it all for a country which just felt like flexing its muscles you will understand why they're looked down upon.

partyatmygaff

MagicMarker wrote: »

She could have just ejected before impact, simples.

"Simples" indeed.

If only timing an ejection and a mid air collision between two extremely fast and maneuverable jets was as simple as you made it out to be. Can you imagine what could have happened if she ejected and missed? All she would have done was destroy an expensive fighter jet (And whatever else it would have hit on the ground) and miss an opportunity to put a stop to the plane.

iMax

Happened before, don't know what the issue is

http://cli.ps/aALM

PK2008

USA!! USA!! USA!!


*snore*

teol

Lies. The US Military has bullets for everything.

Son Of A Vidic

OP - A bit of an over exaggeration on your part to say the least. There is a ramming technique which can be employed by USAF pilots, in a last ditch attempt to bring down a plane. During this technique, the pilot will initially pull close to the target and match the airspeed. Then they target part of the wing, increase their air speed and eject from the aircraft just prior to impact. So it's a lot different from a Japanese kamikaze.

Some US planes were on exercise that day and had no armaments on board. Except for their forward cannon, which was not carrying exploding rounds. So it would have been difficult to bring a large passenger plane down in that instance. Controlled ramming was the best option employed in such a scenario.

jugger0

The Japanese bayonet charged machine gun nests and killed themselves instead of surrender... Japaneses>Americans

ReacherCreature

donutface wrote: »

They were sending a fighter pilot on a suicide mission!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2011/09/06/gIQAMpcODK_story.html

There's a stark contrast. During WWII the Japanese employed Kamikaze attacks as a doctrine. They recruited for pilots to pack their craft with high explosives, little defensive armament and to willingly kill themselves piloting their planes into US warships.

The modern day US fighting doctrine at its very essential core is to fly, shoot down the opposition and return. Rinse and repeat.

The woman in question had no missiles or suitable ammunition to bring down the jet, if she was to kill herself it was to be an isolated incident.

There's very little reason to make this comparison. If you're going to compare like that, why not mention German aircraft ramming Allied bombers in the 1940s? Or contemporary suicide bombers?

jugger0 wrote: »

The Japanese bayonet charged machine gun nests and killed themselves instead of surrender... Japaneses>Americans

Or foolish? Killing themselves en masse during the war certainly did not help their chances later in the war in defending the homeland's islands.

Teclo

Such an attempt to bring down an airliner may have been suicidal but the word 'fanatical' does not apply to attempt to stop the murder of potentially thousands of civilians. Protecting Imperial Japan was something entirely different.

AnonoBoy

Surely they could have given her a gun. Then she could have flown alongside the hijacked jet, flipped open the cockpit, shot the hijackers through the glass of the other cockpit, done a barrel-roll and then bring it home where she'd be greeted by lots of cheery buxom women or men or whatever she's into.

Right?

Logical Fallacy

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Surely they could have given her a gun. Then she could have flown alongside the hijacked jet, flipped open the cockpit, shot the hijackers through the glass of the other cockpit, done a barrel-roll and then bring it home where she'd be greeted by lots of cheery buxom women or men or whatever she's into.

Right?

If this ever gets turned into a film i can see Nic Cage in the lead role.

mattjack

My grandfather fought against the Japanese in the war , all over Asia..He came home a broken man, mentally,...eventually things came to a head the night he bayonet charged a group of boy scouts doing bob a job.In the darkness he thought they were a troop of Japanese infantry .

Nodin

donutface wrote: »

They were sending a fighter pilot on a suicide mission!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2011/09/06/gIQAMpcODK_story.html

Totally different context. 'No greater love...' etc.

Wild_Dogger

You'd like to see a few bankers and property developers die , for the benifit of the nation .

AnonoBoy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

If this ever gets turned into a film i can see Nic Cage in the lead role.

"You can ride my tail any time Nic!"

Killer Wench

The OP is yet another example....

Snakeblood

Sauvignon82 wrote: »

I'm sure if you ask any frontline soldier for any country, I would guess that the majority of them are willing to give up their lives for the country when it comes down to it.
I think they'd be naive to enter the army in the first place if they didn't realise that death is quite possible.

I'd be more willing to make the other bastard die for his country, personally.

cyrusdvirus

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Hmmm....Death BEFORE dishonour?

Exactly how much dishonour are we talking about here?

I, for one, would fellate a smurf.

Bonus points for whoever knows who I'm ripping off here.

Where do i collect my points Dylan?

Freddie59

Killer Wench wrote: »

The OP is yet another example....

Yep.

Overheal

donutface wrote: »

They were sending a fighter pilot on a suicide mission!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2011/09/06/gIQAMpcODK_story.html

So just so I understand your asinine complaint,

One, You poorly stereotyped modern Japan. Just saying. And another, your premise is they Sent - Ordered, etc. - a suicide F-16 Pilot into the air. Not true at all, and supported nowhere in your article.

And you mock that either way for some reason and I don't get that. As they rightly point out - those two pilots were ready to give their lives up (not like retards, they did think about Ejection) but whats more you basically ignore the entire set of known facts around United Flight 93. Which the article tells you, and I'm about to tell you, and nobody should really need to be telling you this: those passengers were also ready to be "Fanatical" and give up their lives to save others.

And they did.

So I really hope you understand that. And I would like to think that you know yourself that given the same parameters you might yourself do the same if it was you, and you could potentially save hundreds or thousands of people through your actions. Because remember that when this happened: Nobody knew who was doing it, or what the motivation was. They just knew two WTC towers had been hit and the Pentagon had been attacked as well. They - we - were under attack and we had to assume at the given moment that more would follow.

It's hard not to get angry at people who don't see the events the way that I do but I've learned that most of you folks around here really have no concept. So I think I will decline to comment on some of the Banzai jokes around here and just hope you all have now taken a moment to look at it a little differently.

Have a good one.

kowloon

MagicMarker wrote: »

She could have just ejected before impact, simples.

Ejected through the floor of the opposing craft, take out the hiijackers with sidearm and land the passengers safely and on time for their connecting flights.

That's what I would have done.

flas

kowloon wrote: »

Ejected through the floor of the opposing craft, take out the hiijackers with sidearm and land the passengers safely and on time for their connecting flights.

That's what I would have done.

this wouldnt have been at all possible...all the connecting flights would have been grounded at that stage.

i dont really believe the whole story of the plane of passangers taking over the terrorists, dont know why, just doesnt seem realistic, like if that had happened on one plane why couldnt it have happened on all the other planes! i think it was blown out of the sky, its a nice story if they did actually take it over though, like a film or something, heroic in the face of death and all that!

Manic Moran

flas wrote: »

i dont really believe the whole story of the plane of passangers taking over the terrorists, dont know why, just doesnt seem realistic, like if that had happened on one plane why couldnt it have happened on all the other planes! i think it was blown out of the sky, its a nice story if they did actually take it over though, like a film or something, heroic in the face of death and all that!

It could have happened. They just didn't decide to do it. Remember, standard operating procedure of the time was to be a good victim, shut up, sit down, do nothing, and enjoy the ride until someone else does something like release you or storm the airplane. It wasn't until the passengers on 93 realized that standard procedure had a high chance of getting themselves killed that they decided to have a crack at it.

4leto

I wonder could she have downed he plane without getting killed

For instance tip the 737s wings or use her jets superior speed and strength if she failed she could always have ejected safely.

Overheal

4leto wrote: »

I wonder could she have downed he plane without getting killed

For instance tip the 737s wings or use her jets superior speed and strength if she failed she could always have ejected safely.

tip the wings?

Knowing at least a thing or two about aircraft and their construction I don't see what else she could have done but ram the 737. She and her instructor were trained pilots after all and I'm certain they know far more than I do on the subject, especially since their job revolves in great part around bringing down aircraft.

partyatmygaff

4leto wrote: »

I wonder could she have downed he plane without getting killed

For instance tip the 737s wings or use her jets superior speed and strength if she failed she could always have ejected safely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4793ObUOlTk

I doubt that would've been possible.

For one, look at the sheer difference in size and mass between the two. A 737 (With a fairly normal load) has a mass of about 45,000kg or so. An unarmed F16 would weigh around 9,000kg. The F16 may have a higher power:weight ratio but power really doesn't come in to the equation here. It's like trying to stop a truck with a Ferrari. They both have powerful engines but no matter how powerful an engine you have you still need enough mass to deliver the required amount of energy. It's impossible and that's even without taking in to account the huge amounts of drag that would make a maneuver like that exceptionally difficult.

Then there's the minor problem of the pilot being able to just "tip" the yoke in the opposite direction :pac: