Hacker News Reader

Comment by echoradio | Hacker News Reader

I would think launching fighter jets to force the landing of a passenger plane is considered an act of aggression. How will that play out with NATO, of which the origin/destination countries are a part of?

View on HN

Usually it follows the four stage strategy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak

In emergency situations it is totally normal to send fighter jets, less so as killing machines, more as agile planes with pilots skilled at close-quarter flying. The fighter pilots can assess the situation, guide the pilot (perhaps with a broken radio or other trouble?) down to safety. Or if it is hijacked and aimed at a nuclear plant, probably then shoot it down. This happens everywhere.

Of course this is a very convenient coincidence here that a random emergency happens with a wanted man in board...

Sure, but the context here is very different. It was a state-sponsored hijacking.

Not really a NATO issue, if you willingly enter another country, even it's airspace, you're agreeing to abide by their laws. Or, this this case, lack of laws. There's lots of things wrong with this, but NATO rules aren't in play.

That as well. They freaking sent a MiG-29 to accompany the plane with the fake excuse to find a "bomb"...

https://onemileatatime.com/bomb-threat-el-al-787-fighter-jet...

A similar situation from a few weeks ago.

>How will that play out with NATO

they will send a strongly worded letter, no doubt about it

They will send Thoughts and Prayers.

10x the cost of flying over EU for russian planes so we can compensate nuclear b52's & f35's escorting EU planes over russia...

Considering that most if not all Europe to Asia flights go over Russia, it will be awfully long escorts and Russia will 10x cost too. Besides that Russia has nothing to do with current incident.

Of course they do, Belarus is in their pocket and they have to pay accordingly. NATO cannot display weakness again and again. If Russia increases the fee then we take away their planes (via maintenance) which pretty much bans them from travelling around the globe.

It would be expensive to divert for Japan and Korea, not so much SE Asia. I can't see Russia fucking with China though.

Flights already do a big detour around Ukraine because of their conflict with Russia. In fact, middle eastern hubs would love Belarus airspace to be restricted, it makes their routes much more competitive. Flights to SE Asia often fly further south, over the caucuses, Afg/Iran to SNG, or Iraq/Iran to Qatar since the GCC blockade. (Iran charges considerable fees for this btw, a good source of hard currency.)

I'm afraid Russia has everything to do with this incident. There is no way they would do this without Putin's okay. That he is willing to risk Russian airspace rights shows how desperately worried he is about popular uprisings.

The ops.group newsletter [0] is a great resource for understanding flight restrictions.

[0] https://ops.group/blog/assessing-the-risk-operations-over-co...

Intercept and escort is far less aggressive than missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Not that the US was wrong to be on high alert:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

Reply on news.ycombinator.com