2) Why aren't the military craft listening to the local flight channel? Aren't you supposed to monitor local traffic? Especially when flying without a transponder? It's not like you can't listen to multiple channels at the same time!
Military aircraft mostly do not have civilian VHF radio, only military UHF radio. They can only communicate with civilian aircraft by using civilian ATC as a go-between, and only if the civilian ATC is equipped with military UHF radio. In the US, this military equipment is standard at civilian ATC sites for this reason.
Why don't they have at least a receive-only radio? I can understand if they're averse to someone keying up and accidentally broadcasting Secret Military Stuff on the civilian frequency, but a an air-band capable VHF receiver is less than $100 as a consumer buying single units. Surely the MIC could find a way to add one for just $10k as cheap insurance against losing a $5 million plane in a tragic and avoidable accident?
Why was the Air Force plane’s transponder turned off? This is negligence that almost killed a plane full of people and endangered a national security operation. Outrageous.
It's expected for military operations to fly without transponder, they don't want to have their location visible. But it's crazy that they're also doing it in Curacao controlled airspace without agreeing a restricted area.
Even for training they set up restricted/military areas in airspace all the time. Not doing it here, in allied (Curacao is part of the kingdom of the Netherlands) airspace is unacceptable. They could have coordinated this in the normal ways so ATC would route civilian traffic around the military operations or talk to the military controllers (who can see both types of traffic) before sending an aircraft through the shared airspace.
This isn't new, it's how military operations are done all the time.
Just a reminder the US military also conducts training operations around large civilian airports within the USA, with their ADS-B turned off, in this instance resulting in the death of 67 people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_col...
>Just a reminder the US military also conducts training operations around large civilian airports within the USA
that's misleading.
"The helicopter was part of the Continuity of Government Plan, with the flight being a routine re-training of aircrew in night flight along the corridor. In emergencies, elements of the US government would use it to evacuate the capital." Since the helicopter training flight needs to take place in proximity to the US government, and the airport serves Washington DC, they are of necessity juxtaposed.
the US military does not seek out large civilian "airports" within the USA to run training operations. In this case it's just "airport" that happens to be near where the training needs to take place.
Curacao is a few kilometers of the Venezuelan coast, but the Americans have deemed the entire ocean north of Venezuela as military operations. The people in charge probably don't even know Curacao isn't part of Venezuela.
With effectively no military and the Dutch government being an American lapdog, I doubt the people in charge need to care. They're already out there with orders to commit war crimes, shooting down an airliner or two that gets too close to their military aircraft wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run.
> The people in charge probably don't even know Curacao isn't part of Venezuela
assuming Lieutenant General Evan Lamar Pettus is in charge
"""
Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Engineering, United States Air Force Academy
Master of Business Administration (MBA), Bellevue University
Master of Science in Logistics Sciences, Air Force Institute of Technology
Master of Strategic Studies, Air War College
Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training
U.S. Air Force Weapons School graduate
Squadron Officer School
Air Command and Staff College
Combined/Joint Forces Land Component Commander Course
Combined Force Air Component Commander Course
Senior Joint Information Operations Applications Course
Combined Force Maritime Component Commander Course
Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course
Operational and Leadership Training
Qualified as a command pilot with more than 2,700 flight hours in aircraft including the F-15E and A-10, and multiple combat deployments (Operations Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Inherent Resolve).
Completed F-15E Weapons Instructor Course
"""
but yeah, he probably doesn't know Curacao isn't part of Venezuela.
> Curacao is a few kilometers of the Venezuelan coast, but the Americans have deemed the entire ocean north of Venezuela as military operations.
Are you suggesting Lieutenant General Evan Lamar Pettus did that? Or Hegseth and Trump? Because that's clearly what hte parent was referencing. So, please, explain to me how Lieutenant General Pettus deemed the entire ocean north of Venezuela as military operations on their own without the involvement of Hegseth or Trump. Or admit you are wrong.
(Hegseth may've accidentally texted it to a reporter, though. That'd be on brand.)
It's very clear that the upthread comment was referring to the administration - headed by a guy prone to word salad and outright lies - not the folks way, way down the chain doing the flight plans.
Look, I understand, but we have a concrete event here that is being discussed and there is no evidence anywhere for what you came up with. Adding feeling-based imagination instead of sticking to facts just makes the discussion much worse - and much closer to behavior you seem to object to.
This same comment could be posted verbatim on practically any past discussion about terrible things that have happened and been happening. At what point is it fair to raise or discuss the bigger problems?
Turning the transponder off only prevents civilian ATC from knowing your identification and altitude. They will still see your position as a primary target on their radar.
> It's expected for military operations to fly without transponder
It's been a problem specifically with US military aircraft for years that they just wander into other people's airspace with transponders off and expect to have it all to themselves.
We should just start shooting down anything big enough to need a transponder that is not using one. Doesn't matter who's in it, doesn't matter what it's for.
> We should just start shooting down anything big enough to need a transponder that is not using one. Doesn't matter who's in it, doesn't matter what it's for.
Maximum destructive, irreversible response.
Even if you think this is sometimes warranted, have you thought of the edge cases? You seem perfectly happy to be shot down yourself, sitting in your airplane with a failed transponder.
What's gotten into you to want to kill people so much?
There are already things in place for dealing with failed transponders.
It's bad enough that the US already deliberately shoot at their allies (look at all the "friendly fire" incidents the US cause) without them sneaking about in protected airspace without identifying themselves.
If there's a military plane flying around without any identification, it's either a Russian flight up to no good or an American one up to no good.
This literally was due to a plot hatched by Trump personally to destroy the sovereignty of someone else and threaten that of many others.
It's strange to frame that as if it's some totally wild interpretation of events (though obviously it doesn't justify shooting down anything that isn't transponding)
> It's called TDS. Blind unfiltered constant rage against Trump, and anything he might represent, as if he is the great marvel super villain.
I mean he obviously isn't, he's way too fucking dumb and demented for a good supervillain. Nobody would buy a guy looking like that as the "super villain". Sleasy mafia boss wanting to sleep with your preteen daughter in exchange for a favour, yes. Super villain? Never in his wildest dreams.
> We should just start shooting down anything big enough to need a transponder that is not using one. Doesn't matter who's in it, doesn't matter what it's for.
indistinguishable from what someone in the current administration would come up with
Unfortunately the current administration just lets the Americans and the Russians tell it what to do and puts up with murderous attacks from both with a shrug of the shoulders.
They can't declare war, that would require approval from congress. They're relying on the post-9/11 authorization granted to the president to use the military to go after terrorists and those that harbor them.
That is why this administration is leaning heavily into calling the drug traffickers "narco-terrorists" and calling fentanyl their "weapon of mass destruction". They're covering their ass legally so they can invade another country without congressional approval.
This is what they're using, the legal theory is basically tren de aragua cartel and their drugs is an "invasion" of the USA and is "sufficiently connected" to the Venezuelan government to trigger the act's wartime powers.
The only powers this act grants is the power to deport foreign nationals without due process, it does not grant them any powers to militarily invade another country.
To be clear, the post-9/11 AUMF is "specific" to people affiliated with the perpetrators of 9/11. Obviously a nexus can be drawn between a gigantic array of people to the perpetrators of 9/11, and this feature has been abused for decades now, but the Venezuelan situation clearly does not actually (or even allegedly) have any nexus whatsoever to 9/11 and so is clearly not authorized by the 2001 AUMF.
Sure, it wouldn't hold up in any reasonable court, but all they really need is to give congress some excuse to not intervene and pretending this falls under the 9/11 AUMF is good enough. And once the U.S. is at war with Venezuela not even a court order from the supreme court is going to be able to reverse that.
Even without a deceleration of war, any use of the military requires congressional approval unless it falls within some authorization congress has already granted.
I think you have "war" confused with "blowing up people we're suspicious of". It goes perfectly with "imprisoning and/or deporting people we're suspicious of".
I served. While in basic training, the drill sergeants taught us why we salute differently than other countries (probably apocryphal) - because we've "never lost a war". I'm cheeky now and I was then, so I asked about vietnam.
"Police Action" came the terse reply. "We don't talk about that one."
Course by then I'd already signed on the dotted, so...
We’ve never lost a war but we’ve definitely failed to accomplish our objectives a few times along the way. We built the greatest hammer the world has ever seen then asked it to saw lumber and wondered why it failed.
That’s not true at all. We just don’t talk much about the ones we won.
Last year I went to Grenada, which we invaded in the 80s. They love us for it and have statues of Reagan on the island. Without us, they probably would have suffered the same fate as Cuba.
Where would South Korea be without our intervention? Etc.
Well, goes back to your definitions of “won” and “war”. Both are fairly blurry.
We definitely accomplished our objective in Grenada, which we invaded. I’d call it winning a war. There were boots on the ground who did what we sent them to do.
Korea was definitely a war and the ostensible purpose was to repel North Korea, which we and our allies did. If that’s not winning a war, what is it?
Real quick, I'm trying to remember a word, it's on the tip of my tongue. It's when one country uses military force in order to make another country have significant internal political changes. Just on the tip of my tongue....
As if these kind of people care about such a threat. They do not care about "their" country, "their" country is a resource they control. They very much prefer to sacrifice the whole countries population until the tanks stand in front of their bunker and then they take the "clean self-exit".
We? Seems like a personal vendetta from my perspective. I in no way shape or form want to send Americans to Venezuela for the holidays to start an armed conflict.
Gotta think about economy and those sweet sweet deals bringing tons of money and power to orange clan err economy and jobs! Its all fault of mexicans after all! Anyway I am sure there can be a new resort/casino or two somewhere there
That Trump is even near the reigns of power is obviously an indictment of many facets of American culture and politics, but it doesn't really wash out to every individual American bearing responsibility the way you're suggesting here.
Every citizen in a democracy has a responsibility for the actions of their government. Voting does not magically absolve you from that.
And its hard to see the nuance from the outside when all you hear are threats of economic turmoil, death, destruction and war. Every action of the american government regarding my country has been hostile so far, so forgive me for loosing my patience with the american public. All that talk about "land of the free, home of the brave", but as soon as their government threatens the "free world" americans fold over like lawnchairs. Its incredibly dissapointing.
Most of us didn’t vote for Trump. A slim majority of voters did, many of them because he is generally anti-war. (I’ve never liked or voted for him, but his desire to end wars is sincere.)
Many of his ardent supporters are confused as to what we’re doing in Venezuela right now and feel it’s the opposite of what they voted for.
You certainly don’t expect this level of surprises from someone’s second term, but the unprecedented path of his political career has certainly made it much different.
And 88 million people signaled they were fine with either candidate, by not voting. 165 million people out of 264 millions eligible voters supported this.
as someone who has never voted, i am absolutely okay with this characterization. i often hold my tongue when it comes to complaining about political stuff because i dont really feel like i have the right to. i mean, of course i HAVE the right, but the hypocrisy isn’t. to be clear: this is not the same thing as being animated about general gov. malfeasance, which is something that everyone is in the right to complain about, as the operation of the government isn’t a politics-specific issue in a lot of cases.
> don't think one can blame them, not voting can be a legit option for many reasons,
With the exception of people who have religious beliefs prohibiting voting, it’s saying that you don’t feel strongly enough about the differences between the two candidates to pick one. There are some people who can plead various hardships, but most people don’t have that excuse: it really did come down to thinking their life would be fine either way.
No, in the US electoral formula, not every vote for President will make a difference. Seven out of 50 states are close, so in 43 states it’s only a protest vote.
It still matters for the popular vote and all of the downstream candidates. People who stay home inevitably complain about local changes which also were on the ballot.
I strongly support national electoral vote reform but it’s important to remember that every election really does matter.
In a healthy democracy there are more ways than just voting to influence the countrys political affairs. Democracy has a price, voting every four years is not enough.
> We don’t elect Presidents based on getting a majority of votes of all US citizens, even if they can’t vote.
We don't even elect Presidents based on getting a majority (or even plurality) of all voters who actually vote, though the method actually used usually (but not always) also happens to elect the person who does that.
Nope. Sorry. From outside the US, there is just the US. We dont understand your "us vs them" tribalism nor the political divide. Every US citizen at this point is responsible for what's going on. Regardless of who you voted for. All of this is due to decades of complacency by the citizenry, it's not some sudden surprising coup.
I'm not saying the rest of the world is in the clear though. I think many countries are headed in a similar direction. Hopefully this is the wakeup call we all need to step up and arrest this slide into authoritarianism that's happening everywhere.
The recent elections in the U.S. went mostly anti-Trump. Is that the type of action you are calling for? Or did you want something more than running for office and voting?
Sorry, I don't know what elections you are talking about. The only one that I'm aware of was last year's election, which was very much the opposite of anti-trump.
And still Trump reigns without a care. But I am sure the next flipped seat in some mayor-election will bring him to his knees. Just one more lawsuit and we have him, just one more impeachment, pretty please.
~60% of the 8M people that fled Venezuela are incline to support a military intervention, that number goes down to 40% estimated for those still inside, so about more than half the country want external action to get out of the dictatorship. That percentage is for external action, the percentage that voted against the dictator in the stolen election last year was calculated at 76%; so no, is definitely not just the MAGA fan base that want to see something happen.
A bad situation is not improved by an even worse one. It does speaks volumes to the desperation of Venezuelans that many would rather their own country get invaded if that rids them of Maduro.
That did not quite go according to plan either. Definitely not a dictatorship but not exactly clean and the end result is not so far off from where they started. Venezuela could easily end up worse than it is today.
You’d be surprised. Last month on a visit to the U.S., 8/10 Uber drivers I had were Venezuelan. I’m a fluent Spanish speaker so I engaged in this very topic. The vast majority of them wanted Maduro out, and the fastest way to that is through U.S. intervention. They were not opposed to this.
1. This is a bit of a selection bias, since they are in the US, they aren't going to be the ones in the line of fire. It's all upshot for them.
2. Turn back the clock two decades ago, I'm sure plenty of ex-pat Iraqis wanted Saddam out, but half a million dead and a ten-year civil war and also fucking ISIS may have been a bit above what they were willing to pay. If I were living in a country ruled by a deranged autocrat (...), I too would like to see him removed, but that doesn't mean I'd invite war over it. (And the knives-out-nightly-disappearance repression that will inevitably follow.)
3. Given who Trump sucks up to and appoints, I'm sure he'll find his own monster to replace Maduro with. (The US track record with this in the Americas has been incredibly awful, but I've no doubt that he can set a new lowest bar.) He sure as shit won't be putting some lady who won a peace prize in charge.
Yes, I suppose you have successfully provided a counter-argument to my point, and I have to concede it - there are people with more skin in the game than the average MAGA who want to stick their former neighbours' hands in the fire, to check if it is hot.
Political expats and exiles do tend to favor invasions of their countries more than the people who live in them do, and I've not considered their viewpoints in this.
It's funny how the French are portrayed as cowards in American popular culture, when in reality the French would've gotten the guillotines out already while the Americans... cower.
It used to be I guess a slur, "surrender monkeys," because France surrendered during WWII and there was a Nazi-collaborator government established filled with French politicians.
It's unfair given the reality and importance of the French resistance, but, that's where it comes from.
That one was the brits if I'm not mistaken - Jeremy Clarkson specifically (who I have a lot of affection for - Top Gear was a significant part of my childhood, but he does make an art out of being offensively wrong).
You have to own it at this stage. Even if you didn't vote for it. Particularly as that tangerine is in for a second innings. All the world wants to hear is what you're doing to fight the situation, not that it's not your fault.
Common sense would dictate that a military aircraft conducting military operations off the coast of a hostile nation tend to not want to broadcast their position to the world. So not outrageous, just unfortunate. It's extremely common.
On the other side it is perfectly visible on radar (and can be heard (and with jet having its own characteristic signature it can be tracked even by WWII microphone array like they did back then) and visible in binoculars from large distance in nice Caribbean weather), so it is hiding only from civilians. Security by obscurity kind of. That is especially so in the case of a slow large non-maneuvering tanker plane like here.
And why would a tanker plane come close to and even enter the hostile airspace?! may be one has to check Hegseth's Signal to get an answer for that, probably it is something like "big plane -> Scary!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mUbmJ1-sNs.
I can just about guarantee it has nothing to do with targeting and a lot to do with making Venezuela unsure when strikes are about to start, both for security of the forces launching the eventual strikes (if any) and to harass/wear-down Venezuelan air defenses by keeping them very alert.
If our aircaft were flying transponders-on during all these exercises then suddenly went dark, it’d signal imminent attack. This keeps them guessing. Possibly we’re even playing around with having them on some of the time for some aircraft, and off at other times.
We don’t do that with AWACS and such near Russia because we’re not posturing that we may attack them any day now, and want to avoid both accidental and “accidental” encounters with Russian weapons by making them very visible. In this case, an accidental engagement by Venezuelan forces probably isn’t something US leadership would be sad about.
I live near JBLM in Washington. I am routinely overflown by helicopters and planes (C-17s) often with their transponders off (I have an ADS-B receiver running on a VM). These are training flights that are not going anywhere outside of the Puget Sound region. For added fun, I'm also pretty close to several Sea-Tac approaches.
> is significantly more precise than what you will get with radar
Is that increase in precision much larger than the plane itself? If it's not then it couldn't possibly matter in this application.
Further radar is not a static image. The radar is constantly sweeping the sky, taking multiple measurements, and in some cases using filtering to avoid noise and jitter.
> GPS Lat & Long Barometric Altitude Ground speed & track angle Rate of climb/descent
You get or synthesize every one of those with radar as well.
Yes, ADS-B is significantly more precise than civilian primary radar returns. That's why the FAA is trying to move away from radar. The JetBlue near miss was about 150 miles from Curacao ATC which is beyond what most ASR systems cover (around half that).
Military radar is a different beast, but even then you're still trying to figure out what the returns mean. ADS-B explicitly says hey there are two aircraft in a tiny space. Civilian radar is likely not precise enough to identify two aircraft that close.
Isn't altitude information also one of the important things about ADS-B that radar lacks?
Although ADS-B is self reported and "vulnerable" to bad/spoofed info.
My CFI and I once saw ADS-B data from one of the startups near Palo Alto airport in California reporting supersonic speeds... at ground level, no less.
Edit: still have it in my email, heh. It was a Kitty Hawk Cora, N306XZ, reporting 933kts at 50'.
Even good stereopair like a WWI navy guns rangefinder, will give you all that info, of course not precise enough to lock a missile - well, transponder also wouldn't let you to anyway, and thus all that transponder precision is pointless in that context.
A missile only needs to get close enough for its sensors to take over for the final approach right? Transponder data should be quite enough for that, especially for a kc-46
Any of the methods i mentioned is enough to get missile close, except may be microphones as limited speed of sound means that the plane would have moved significantly from the observed position, though again even that would have allowed to put missile into the vicinity and in general direction.
Watching Ukraine videos there is new game in town though - relatively cheap IR cameras. Using IR, day or night, you can detect a jet plane from very large distances and just guide missile to the plane computer-game-joystick style.
You jest, but even in the age of modern warfare, countries still actively declare war and formally notify the other country, even if a bit late, with a formal declaration. The notable exceptions being of course the USA and the USSR and Russia, which like to call their wars "police actions" and "special military operations".
I would contend that we live in an era of “5th Generation” undeclared wars between powers. I don’t personally draw a line between a missile attack and a shipment of fentanyl or cocaine which will kill citizens all the same.
the redcoats didn't wear colorful coats and form nice big lines because they were stupid. They beat Napolean using similar tactics. And they didn't lose to the US because of these tactics.
Maybe you should reflect on why people who have lead others in combat have decided that there should be rules to war before you declare that rules of war are a bad idea.
The Red Coats lost quite a few battles to their aged tactics against the Patriots. So much so that officers complained about the ungentlemanly conduct routinely in their correspondence.
As far as our modern, temporary notion of “rules of war,” go, it’s because it suited the victor and gives them what they feel is an edge and an air of superiority. I don’t say this to be smug either, just look at how well the Geneva Suggestions worked out for the North Vietnamese or the Taliban. They ignored the and won.
Like it or not, the modern nation-state’s notions of Rules of War are going to quickly become a bygone relic of a simpler time, as was a formal British fighting line.
The USA is the strongest military power in the world. They are not the underdog. If they resort to war crimes or unfairness, it's not because they are the underdogs; it's because this is what top dogs do. Let's not make excuses for them.
Military planes often deliberately have them on; not every mission is secretive. You can often see NATO planes on FlightAware in the Black Sea clearly keeping an eye on the Ukraine theatre.
I was speaking perhaps too casually, but "military things" was meant to mean offensive operations. The kind of things where you might expect to be fired upon (or at least need to take precautions against that happening). A transponder is a homing beacon for missiles.
You watch too many movies, there are plenty of other things for the missiles to track. Transponder in civilian airspace is just how you keep planes from crashing into each other.
I don't watch those kinds of movies. I have, on the other hand, worked for a large aerospace firm supplying these weapon systems.
A transponder is how civilian planes tell exactly where they are relative to each other. Missiles use IR, radar-bounce, and other methods for the last-mile delivery of explode-y bits, but when launched from afar (e.g. a surface-to-air missile launched from land towards something over the horizon) they need to be pre-loaded with the exact position of the target, as they need to get close to it before switching to a homing mechanism. If the target has a radio transponder, that makes this step trivially easy.
If Venezuela wanted to shoot one of these planes down, with the transponder off the missile is as likely to lock on to a commercial airliner. They're not going to take that risk.
And they often deliberately have them off, even for training flights, at least looking at my ADS-B receivers raw output and correlating to FA/FR24/etc.
> That map projection is the worst choice possible.
For navigation, the Mercator projection is useful, because a straight line on the chart is where you go with a constant bearing. Aerial navigation is waypoint/bearing/waypoint/bearing. So most aviation maps are Mercator.
The Monroe Doctrine was about preventing colonial powers from enacting NEW efforts to reach into the Americas, not about getting rid of previous control.
"The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects FOR FUTURE COLONIZATION by any European powers." (emphasis mine)
Yeah, you can visit the EU by… sailing a ways Northeast(ish) from Maine, until you’re just south of (a part of) Canada. And by going to the Caribbean. And South America.
unlikely, at least not during this generation. even putting aside the current admin, the US has (to put it extremely lightly) long failed to police its own and certain "allies'" behavior, which undermines the concept altogether.
at this point, there are unfortunately no "good guys" at the state level.
Someone has to prevent the execution of journalist who speak out against the regime and that has no due process and also have highest execution rate of any country. They labeled "Authoritarian state" by Amnesty International and Humans Rights Watch and "Systemic human-rights violator" by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Oh wait, i mixed up Saudi Arabia one of the US's closets allies with Venezuela.
If a bridge gets built then destroyed, built then destroyed, built then destroyed and so on, people will stop using it. They'll also stop trusting the bridge builder.
People all over the world are already building new bridges to places like China, so even if the old ones are rebuilt, they might get substantially less use.
I always get the impression that whenever military/police have the option to turn off ADS-B, they do. Not just in the US or by US forces. Not just on sensitive flights. I don't think the toggle ever gets used.
Not really. I live next to an airport with both a civilian and military presence (and an alternate for a NATO airbase). The number of military/police flights that I can only see on MLAT is pretty worrying. I don't think BPol has ever turned their "stealth" switch off.
In other news, the National Defense Authorization Act working its way through congress is trying to loosen restrictions around DCA that were put in place after a military helicopter collided with a passenger jet.
Call me crazy, but I think any time, any where, without any exceptions whatsoever, someone wants to fly a multi-ton chunk of metal, they need to broadcast telemetry in a cleartext, open standard.
I understand that this might be disruptive to people who want to drop explosives on other people, and while this disruption is a fantastic benefit, it's only a side-effect.
Yeah, exactly. I've been watching adsb activity over my house for years, and in the past few weeks, for the first time, I have activity (helicopter and jet) in my area that it not visible.
It's unnerving, and unbecoming of an egalitarian society.
We have the best mid-air collisions. Noone does it better, or so people tell me. We don't do sleepy silent disappearances over the Bermuda Triangle, that's SAD!! We blow em up, BIGLY, in someone else's airspace. A great PRESIDENT knows how to WIN at mid-air collisions. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
There's a marked difference between this and the Russian one: the Americans owned their mistake and paid reparations. The Russians denied and keep denying.
Mistakes aren't good, but pretending that you didn't make them adds insult to injury.
As much as the current administration turns my stomach, previous ones are not absolved from weaseling their way out of catastrophic mistakes, either.
It's sort of funny that this thread turned into a USA vs Russia debate when they both play the same games. One of them is just slightly better at pretending like they're playing fair and friendly. My take-away from that is once an organized body, be it a country, corporation or religion, gets very large and holds a lot of power, they will inevitably start doing bad things.
Nah you don't understand. When Americans shoot down a plane, it's called "Liberation". You see, by doing so they liberate our souls from this fallen World, which is good!
The major difference being that the US crew got medals for 'meritorious service', including a Navy Commendation Medal and a Legion of Merit. Russia is not quite that ballsy over accidentally butchering civilians.
> Russia is not quite that ballsy over accidentally butchering civilians.
I don't know about accidental, but if anyone thinks Russia is not ballsy about butchering civilians, they need a refresher on Russia's wars during the last few decades. Last few years would be enough too. It's a principle of their military affairs.
Switch on the critical thinking part of your brain and go read about american war crimes, the reality is much dirtier than "we're Good and they're Evil". It's not a competition so I'm not going to start ranking armies but they all have their fair share of atrocities.
What makes you think I'm not thinking critically? You're the person here who seems to be thinking in terms of competition, as far as I can tell. And, who's we?
Not sure if you're being subtly apologetic, so I'll elaborate my point. Russian commanders that led campaigns in Syria got nicknames like Butcher of Aleppo and General Armageddon, for not only using scorched earth tactics, indiscriminate bombing, but actually systemically bombing schools, hospitals, field clinics, bread lines. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called it "crimes of historic proportions." Aid organizations would actually stonewall the UN, because through UN Russia would find out where the bread lines are and would bomb them. These are not accidents, or freak, isolated occurances: it's doctrine. Look at Mariupol. Or, Ukraine in general.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram collection point ? The wikileak scandals ? 100k+ civilians dead in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. 15%+ of drone strike victims being civilian over the last 20 years
These are all accidents too I assume ? Idk what to expect from people who are currently blowing up random boats in international waters and who just declared fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction lmao
Guy, you're the only one here acting like this is a competition. Do you think what Russia does is somehow more acceptable if you can find other criminals? Yeah, just lean into it. Good luck with that.
It's the first time I hear someone calls Curaçao a "nation". It's just the normal Dutch island, not even some special status territory. Yes, it's in Carribean, but why do they omit "Dutch" and call it a "Carribean nation"?
I find words in the same category as "country", "nation", "state", etc are increasingly used interchangeably. Largely because they tend to be far more specific than people mean to be... but also because generic terms like "polity" never caught on in the mainstream. A similar thing is how "nation-states" would appear to be the only type of place worth worrying about highly organized attacks from in infosec, until you ask them to define what they consider a nation-state.
That said, I don't think it's accurate to paint Curaçao as just another normal Dutch island the same as any other. It's really a constituent country that's part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, just not a sovereign state or a nation.
It's hard to use them consistently because there isn't a single universally accepted definition.
Most people would consider the Netherlands a "country", but now we have a country within that country. Israel is a state, Japan is a state, but there are 50 states in the United States. "[People's] Republic of XYZ" generally refers to a sovereign state, but Russia has republics inside. You can't just call something what the locals call it and expect that your readers will get the picture. Even worse, people are often deeply divided as to what a given territory should be called.
So I will generally forgive journalists for picking a neutral-sounding, ambiguous expression in cases like this. What matters here is that the Dutch control this airspace, regardless of Curaçao's status within their kingdom.
A nation-state is a state whose borders and (originally) citizenship are largely defined by a singular nationality. Israel and Japan, for example. Belgium and Canada are not nation states: they are split into French and Flemish, and Anglo and French nationalities, respectively.
It is a 19th century term that rarely applies these days, but still sees some residual usage.
To complete the other half of the story for those not familiar: most all infosec references to "nation-state attack" instead use it to mean "government backed attack" (regardless if a nation-state is involved in the context).
In the concept of a “nation-state”, it is accurate. 20% of Israel’s population is non-Jewish, but it is still accurately described as a Jewish nation.
I’m not defending the morality of this classification scheme, just trying by to be accurate. It dates to the 19th century and is not with the times today, which is why I generally prefer to avoid the term myself.
What do you mean "all the way across the ocean". From where? The distance from Curaçao to the Dutch people is exactly zero.
What "right" are you talking about, is there an agency where we file a claim, and it issues us "rights"?
All people from all nations, tribes and states came from somewhere, sometimes even replacing the local population. Sometimes peacefully, like Anglo-Saxons pushed out local Britons in England, sometimes violently, like Normans invaded and conquered England.
Or like the rich and diverse American Indian history -- tribes came and went, sometimes replaced, pushed out, conquered or assimilated with previous peoples who lived there. Please define "right".
Naah, I'm pretty sure history can find an example of pretty much anything. Here's another example (just less researched) -- Slavic dispersion in Europe.
And I'm 100% sure there a lot of other examples of peaceful expansion or assimilation, because for the most history land was abundant, but shortage of hands to tend to it. There was just no reason to fight (and record it).
It doesn't mean some kings declared that land their own (some declared everything), but they couldn't enforce it. So usually it boiled down to main argument whether something is "yours" -- collecting taxes (aka tribute). As long as someone's can enforce collecting tribute, then they deserve to have the title of "owning" it.
Btw, One of the ways historians determine whether migration was mostly peaceful is by looking at archeological gender structure -- if there's a lot of female immigrants (e.g. Slavic expansion), then they are more likely to be moving by whole families. But if there are few females -- more likely it was invasion (e.g. Huns). Not absolute signal of course, as nothing is in history.
The same business the US has in Guam or Puerto Rico, the UK in the Bahamas etc. It was a colony. They decided to become independent but still part of the kingdom of the Netherlands which was their choice. So the current status is such because the people of Curacao have decided they wanted it this way.
We didn't have the right, obviously, but it has happened and we need to deal with the current situation. And the Netherlands has offered them sovereignty multiple times in the last fifty years, they can leave anytime they want. But nowadays they want to stay in the kingdom, mostly because it offers them some security and stability.
Not sure I’d call crossing traffic “within a few miles” a near-miss. Even at full cruising speed of 500-600MPH (less because the JetBlue was still on a climb) the civilian aircraft would cover a mile in 6-7 seconds, so we are talking 18 to 24 seconds to close 3-4 miles.
Also, it a common for military aircraft to not have a transponder on, especially in the vicinity of threats. Without a transponder the civilian aircraft TCAS/ACAS would not warn about traffic.
Not sure how far off the coast of Venezuela this occurred, but there are some very real SAM threats the Air Force aircraft would need to worry about.
Large aircraft take a while to avoid collisions due to their size and both jets are in motion. So this could have been within 5-10 seconds of a collision depending on specifics. The critical issue is the civilian aircraft “took evasive action on Friday to avoid a mid-air collision with a U.S. Air Force tanker plane near Venezuela, a pilot said in an air traffic control recording.”
Which needs to be reported as it then can impact other air traffic to avoid further issues.
Even if the military plane had its transponder off, the civilian plane didn't. The military pilot had no justification for not knowing the civilian plane was there and at a minimum adjusting its altitude to make this a non issue.
> Not sure I’d call crossing traffic “within a few miles” a near-miss. Even at full cruising speed of 500-600MPH (less because the JetBlue was still on a climb) the civilian aircraft would cover a mile in 6-7 seconds, so we are talking 18 to 24 seconds to close 3-4 miles.
Sweet, so they've got less than half a minute to avoid a collision.
> Not sure how far off the coast of Venezuela this occurred
64km off the coast of Venezuela.
> Also, it a common for military aircraft to not have a transponder on
Is it actually common for military aircrafts with transponders off to mix and match with public traffic in activate flight regions? One would think if there is threats somewhere, they'd first mark the region as restricted, so no public airplanes go there in the first place, then they can fly without the transponders.
> Is it actually common for military aircrafts with transponders off to mix and match with public traffic in activate flight regions?
As a pilot, I can tell you it happens all the time. Even in US domestic airspace. Transponder use is optional for the military, and they will turn them off for some training missions. (Or in this case, a real mission.)
No, they don't close the airspace when this is being done.
The pilots of both aircraft (civilian and military) are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic. The military aircraft should also be keeping an eye on primary radar.
(Transponder use is also optional for some civilian aircraft, btw.)
> The pilots of both aircraft are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic.
How's that supposed to work with Instrument Flight Rules, for which you literally train by wearing glasses which block your view outside the window [0]? And how are you supposed to spot an airplane coming at you with a closing speed of 1000 mph (1600 kmh)? It'll go from impossible-to-see to collision in a few seconds - which is why you won't see any "they didn't look outside the window enough" in the report of accidents like Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907.
The whole point of Air Traffic Control is to control air traffic. Sure, there's plenty of uncontrolled airspace where you do indeed have to look out for traffic, but it's uncontrolled precisely because it rarely if ever sees commercial traffic.
> How's that supposed to work with Instrument Flight Rules, for which you literally train by wearing glasses which block your view outside the window [0]?
If you're wearing "foggles" (the technical term is a "view limiting device"), you're legally required to have a safety pilot who is responsible for maintaining visual watch.
You never, ever wear those while flying solo.
> And how are you supposed to spot an airplane coming at you with a closing speed of 1000 mph (1600 kmh)?
First, this near-miss was with a refueling tanker, which only travels at normal large-jet speed and is quite large.
If it was a fighter jet, you're right, it would be very hard to see. But frankly, compared to a fighter jet, everyone else might as well be a stationary object in the sky in terms of speed and maneuverability - so you're just relying on the fighter jet not to hit you. (They also have onboard primary radar and other fancy toys - so you hope they have more situational awareness of non-participating aircraft.)
> The whole point of Air Traffic Control is to control air traffic. Sure, there's plenty of uncontrolled airspace where you do indeed have to look out for traffic, but it's uncontrolled precisely because it rarely if ever sees commercial traffic.
Most airspace below 18,000 feet is still "controlled airspace", even though you have to look out for traffic - including commercial traffic. The big jets don't like to stay down there any longer than they have to, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
Being on an IFR clearance only guarantees that you're deconflicted with other IFR traffic. There's always the risk that there's non-participating traffic, especially in visual conditions (VMC). Class A airspace and transponder-required airspace help reduce this risk, but it's never completely eliminated.
Also, more importantly: The military largely plays by their own rules, entirely outside of the FAA.
I've been buzzed by a flight of military helicopters in the New Mexico desert. Not intentionally, they just happened to overfly my tent, and I just happened to have cell service somehow. I checked ADSB and sure enough they were flying dark.
Not necessarily; the same remoteness that made cell signal sparse likely makes ADS-B ground stations unlikely. There has to be one in range for it to show up places like FlightAware. Plenty of dead spots; you can help expand the network! https://www.flightaware.com/adsb/piaware/build/
I have an ADS-B receiver on a computer here, and am overhead a number of flight paths for JBLM.
The above comment is accurate, plenty of local training helicopter flights will be fully or partly dark (lights and/or transponders off), looking at my receiver's raw output stream.
ADSB is not mandatory in the US below FL100 or FL180 (10000/18000 feet), that covers most helicopter flights.
It depends also on the website you are using to track. I have an ADSB receiver that publishes to multiple tracking websites (the same data, unfiltered), and not all of them publish all the data. Flightradar24 doesn't show most of the military aircraft - I can see them on my local tracking interface but they are not shown on their website.
> The pilots of both aircraft (civilian and military) are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic. The military aircraft should also be keeping an eye on primary radar.
So in your opinion, that was went wrong here, the military/pilot of the refueling plane didn't actually keep visual watch for traffic nor radar?
I wasn't there and don't know all the facts, so I'm not going to attempt to assign blame in this specific instance.
But speaking generally, I'll just say: If you're flying in VMC conditions (good weather), you're always required to see-and-avoid. Even if you're on an IFR clearance. Everything else is just considered an aid for situational awareness.
> I wasn't there and don't know all the facts, so I'm not going to attempt to assign blame in this specific instance.
Didn't you already though? You said "pilots [..] are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic", and considering one of the parties has a filed flight plan and had their transponder turned on, I can't really read it any way except "the pilots of the military aircraft didn't do what they were supposed to" which is implicitly blaming them, or am I missing some angle/interpretation of what you said?
I don't believe that would be incorrect, because of the context, but I'm curious why'd you suddenly hesitate to say it seems to be the fault of the military here, yet previous comment made that hint implicitly.
No, I stated the regulations, in reply to the parent comment about transponder rules.
I don't know what the weather conditions were, I don't know what the sight-picture was from each aircraft, I don't know if any equipment was malfunctioning, and we don't have a statement from the military pilot.
Many pilots are very hesitant to (publicly) assign blame in an incident without all the facts, since the details do matter. It's too easy to jump to conclusions otherwise.
If the positioning [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUcs1LCjhcs) is at all close to accurate, that looks closer to 300km, with the entirety of Aruba between them & the closest point in Venezuela. (Or all of Curaçao, but I think that line is longer.)
(TFA does say 64 km, though.)
Edit: I'm not sure about 64 km. The 64km is for the Curaçao departing flight, but Curaçao's airport is itself 80 km from Venezuela, and they headed north pretty immediately? I.e., … they would have never been < 80 km…?
> Edit: I'm not sure about 64 km. The 64km is for the Curaçao departing flight, but Curaçao's airport is itself 80 km from Venezuela, and they headed north pretty immediately? I.e., … they would have never been < 80 km…?
If you take off from Curaçao and head like 10km west before you've actually left the island, you end up pretty much within 64km of Adicora, Venezuela. Probably what they meant I guess.
> Not sure I’d call crossing traffic “within a few miles” a near-miss.
Generally, from what I can find, the FAA definition is <500ft, so no, a few miles is potentially an issue, but not what would generally be categorized as a near miss unless there is some situational wrinkle that applies here.
The Air Force is probably used to flying much closer to one another, but civilians are not. Even in a busy airspace, jet airliners are usually kept apart >1000ft vertically, and much more horizontally in the direction they're moving. These birds can fly 500ft in less than 1 second after all.
> The Air Force is probably used to flying much closer to one another, but civilians are not.
The FAA isn’t primarily concerned with the Air Force. They investigate and address loss of separation incidents that fall short of rheir definition of near misses, they just don’t describe them as near misses.
I wasn't talking about the FAA definition specifically, only that military pilots probably have a narrower definition of a near miss than civilians do.
They also seem to be overconfident in their ability to identify, track and evade other aircraft. Example: the Helicopter pilot who crashed into a civilian jet over the Potomac earlier this year.
> there are some very real SAM threats the Air Force aircraft would need to worry about
The US Air Force should /absolutely/ be worried about Venezuela fighting back, with SAMs or otherwise. This military action and potential war is a travesty and the whole world should condemn and ostracize the USA immediately.
After the near miss from JetBlue, there was another near miss with a business jet yesterday morning: https://nos.nl/l/2594640
ATC audio: https://youtu.be/Hto6aTt-X7A?si=2J-NnaXIcOnnWIqS
& the ATC audio on the same channel, but for the flight in TFA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUcs1LCjhcs
1) WTF is with the ATC in both of those
2) Why aren't the military craft listening to the local flight channel? Aren't you supposed to monitor local traffic? Especially when flying without a transponder? It's not like you can't listen to multiple channels at the same time!
Military aircraft mostly do not have civilian VHF radio, only military UHF radio. They can only communicate with civilian aircraft by using civilian ATC as a go-between, and only if the civilian ATC is equipped with military UHF radio. In the US, this military equipment is standard at civilian ATC sites for this reason.
Why don't they have at least a receive-only radio? I can understand if they're averse to someone keying up and accidentally broadcasting Secret Military Stuff on the civilian frequency, but a an air-band capable VHF receiver is less than $100 as a consumer buying single units. Surely the MIC could find a way to add one for just $10k as cheap insurance against losing a $5 million plane in a tragic and avoidable accident?
What's wrong with the ATC in those videos?
For the business jet one, ATC vectored the private jet directly into the crossing traffic. Clearly a giant mistake.
That video has a limited and likely-not-accurate perspective of the planes. I'm not sure we can say it's "clearly" anything from that.
Also, ATC said they were making irregular turns.
[flagged]
Why was the Air Force plane’s transponder turned off? This is negligence that almost killed a plane full of people and endangered a national security operation. Outrageous.
It's expected for military operations to fly without transponder, they don't want to have their location visible. But it's crazy that they're also doing it in Curacao controlled airspace without agreeing a restricted area.
Even for training they set up restricted/military areas in airspace all the time. Not doing it here, in allied (Curacao is part of the kingdom of the Netherlands) airspace is unacceptable. They could have coordinated this in the normal ways so ATC would route civilian traffic around the military operations or talk to the military controllers (who can see both types of traffic) before sending an aircraft through the shared airspace.
This isn't new, it's how military operations are done all the time.
Just a reminder the US military also conducts training operations around large civilian airports within the USA, with their ADS-B turned off, in this instance resulting in the death of 67 people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_col...
>Just a reminder the US military also conducts training operations around large civilian airports within the USA
that's misleading.
"The helicopter was part of the Continuity of Government Plan, with the flight being a routine re-training of aircrew in night flight along the corridor. In emergencies, elements of the US government would use it to evacuate the capital." Since the helicopter training flight needs to take place in proximity to the US government, and the airport serves Washington DC, they are of necessity juxtaposed.
the US military does not seek out large civilian "airports" within the USA to run training operations. In this case it's just "airport" that happens to be near where the training needs to take place.
Presumably they have flight plans, can listen to ATC, RADAR etc.
So what's the plan? Just expect everyone to get out of their way?
Big sky
Too big to fall
Technically the sky is still fine.
Is it? I heard that it was falling.
Do they have possibility of receiving the civilian transponders ? Even if it was off they shoudld've picked different flight height...
Curacao is a few kilometers of the Venezuelan coast, but the Americans have deemed the entire ocean north of Venezuela as military operations. The people in charge probably don't even know Curacao isn't part of Venezuela.
With effectively no military and the Dutch government being an American lapdog, I doubt the people in charge need to care. They're already out there with orders to commit war crimes, shooting down an airliner or two that gets too close to their military aircraft wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run.
> The people in charge probably don't even know Curacao isn't part of Venezuela
assuming Lieutenant General Evan Lamar Pettus is in charge
"""
Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Engineering, United States Air Force Academy
Master of Business Administration (MBA), Bellevue University
Master of Science in Logistics Sciences, Air Force Institute of Technology
Master of Strategic Studies, Air War College
Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training
U.S. Air Force Weapons School graduate
Squadron Officer School
Air Command and Staff College
Combined/Joint Forces Land Component Commander Course
Combined Force Air Component Commander Course
Senior Joint Information Operations Applications Course
Combined Force Maritime Component Commander Course
Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course
Operational and Leadership Training
Qualified as a command pilot with more than 2,700 flight hours in aircraft including the F-15E and A-10, and multiple combat deployments (Operations Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Allied Force, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Inherent Resolve).
Completed F-15E Weapons Instructor Course
"""
but yeah, he probably doesn't know Curacao isn't part of Venezuela.
“Lieutenant General Evan Lamar Pettus” is not “in charge”.
Trump and Hegseth are.
are you suggesting trump and hegseth planned the refueling route?
Be real.
> Curacao is a few kilometers of the Venezuelan coast, but the Americans have deemed the entire ocean north of Venezuela as military operations.
Are you suggesting Lieutenant General Evan Lamar Pettus did that? Or Hegseth and Trump? Because that's clearly what hte parent was referencing. So, please, explain to me how Lieutenant General Pettus deemed the entire ocean north of Venezuela as military operations on their own without the involvement of Hegseth or Trump. Or admit you are wrong.
Pettus won't have planned the route, either.
(Hegseth may've accidentally texted it to a reporter, though. That'd be on brand.)
It's very clear that the upthread comment was referring to the administration - headed by a guy prone to word salad and outright lies - not the folks way, way down the chain doing the flight plans.
The camel has taken a lot of straw in 2025 but:
> shooting down an airliner or two that gets too close to their military aircraft wouldn't make much of a difference in the long run.
Would surely break its back?
I used to think that about so many things the Americans have been doing that I no longer have faith that there is a limit to the absurdity.
Look, I understand, but we have a concrete event here that is being discussed and there is no evidence anywhere for what you came up with. Adding feeling-based imagination instead of sticking to facts just makes the discussion much worse - and much closer to behavior you seem to object to.
This same comment could be posted verbatim on practically any past discussion about terrible things that have happened and been happening. At what point is it fair to raise or discuss the bigger problems?
Did the the camel gain a single stalk when the Vincennes crossed into Iranian territory and shot down a passenger jet?
Yes. Of course. It ended the tanker war.
Iraq and Iran had been pissant slap-fighting over oil tankers for years. The tanker war ended with the Vincennes incident.
A "straw on the camel's back" would mean the war crime earned negative domestic political repercussions.
"Ending the Tanker War" is clearly not that. It was the deployment's objective so I fear there are ghouls who would celebrate it.
The Americans literally want Venezuela to shoot at them so that they can use it as a justification.
But Maduro ain't no fool.
What people may not know is that Curacao- like many Carribbean islands- is entirely dependent on tourism. Basically they're fucked.
Well this was a JetBlue airliner, presumably full of American tourists. Probably not a very popular move to shoot that down.
Turning the transponder off only prevents civilian ATC from knowing your identification and altitude. They will still see your position as a primary target on their radar.
Trump doesn't understand the word "allied".
It's a tanker not a stealth fighter.
[dead]
[flagged]
> It's expected for military operations to fly without transponder
It's been a problem specifically with US military aircraft for years that they just wander into other people's airspace with transponders off and expect to have it all to themselves.
We should just start shooting down anything big enough to need a transponder that is not using one. Doesn't matter who's in it, doesn't matter what it's for.
> We should just start shooting down anything big enough to need a transponder that is not using one. Doesn't matter who's in it, doesn't matter what it's for.
Maximum destructive, irreversible response.
Even if you think this is sometimes warranted, have you thought of the edge cases? You seem perfectly happy to be shot down yourself, sitting in your airplane with a failed transponder.
What's gotten into you to want to kill people so much?
There are already things in place for dealing with failed transponders.
It's bad enough that the US already deliberately shoot at their allies (look at all the "friendly fire" incidents the US cause) without them sneaking about in protected airspace without identifying themselves.
If there's a military plane flying around without any identification, it's either a Russian flight up to no good or an American one up to no good.
[flagged]
As unnecessarily harsh as it was, the original comment said or implied nothing of the sort.
If anything, it seems to be you who is suffering from an affliction not unlike the one you wanted to recognize in somebody else.
This literally was due to a plot hatched by Trump personally to destroy the sovereignty of someone else and threaten that of many others.
It's strange to frame that as if it's some totally wild interpretation of events (though obviously it doesn't justify shooting down anything that isn't transponding)
It must be horrible being you.
> It's called TDS. Blind unfiltered constant rage against Trump, and anything he might represent, as if he is the great marvel super villain.
I mean he obviously isn't, he's way too fucking dumb and demented for a good supervillain. Nobody would buy a guy looking like that as the "super villain". Sleasy mafia boss wanting to sleep with your preteen daughter in exchange for a favour, yes. Super villain? Never in his wildest dreams.
> We should just start shooting down anything big enough to need a transponder that is not using one. Doesn't matter who's in it, doesn't matter what it's for.
indistinguishable from what someone in the current administration would come up with
Unfortunately the current administration just lets the Americans and the Russians tell it what to do and puts up with murderous attacks from both with a shrug of the shoulders.
Because it’s flying near Venezuela, who we’re currently fucking with militarily.
The proper action then would be to declare war, and announce that the airspace is no longer safe for civilian use.
The whole "oh yes, our military is active, but we aren't at war, and yes, the president tweeted about that" spiel is just untenable and ridiculous.
They can't declare war, that would require approval from congress. They're relying on the post-9/11 authorization granted to the president to use the military to go after terrorists and those that harbor them.
That is why this administration is leaning heavily into calling the drug traffickers "narco-terrorists" and calling fentanyl their "weapon of mass destruction". They're covering their ass legally so they can invade another country without congressional approval.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/alie...
This is what they're using, the legal theory is basically tren de aragua cartel and their drugs is an "invasion" of the USA and is "sufficiently connected" to the Venezuelan government to trigger the act's wartime powers.
The only powers this act grants is the power to deport foreign nationals without due process, it does not grant them any powers to militarily invade another country.
Just to be clear, not my theory: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/12/09/venezuela...
Those military actions are on international waters. There is no legal theory even on the fringes for invading another country using that act.
To be clear, the post-9/11 AUMF is "specific" to people affiliated with the perpetrators of 9/11. Obviously a nexus can be drawn between a gigantic array of people to the perpetrators of 9/11, and this feature has been abused for decades now, but the Venezuelan situation clearly does not actually (or even allegedly) have any nexus whatsoever to 9/11 and so is clearly not authorized by the 2001 AUMF.
Sure, it wouldn't hold up in any reasonable court, but all they really need is to give congress some excuse to not intervene and pretending this falls under the 9/11 AUMF is good enough. And once the U.S. is at war with Venezuela not even a court order from the supreme court is going to be able to reverse that.
congresss did not declare war for any of the post wwii wars.
While technically true, they did give authorization to both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as others.
Even without a deceleration of war, any use of the military requires congressional approval unless it falls within some authorization congress has already granted.
Welcome to the Brave New World (Order) of post-truth, post-law and special military operations.
we wouldn’t be doing that, we voted for President that will end all the wars, not start new ones
Thank you for buying my bridge, no refunds asked and zero money back down
I think you have "war" confused with "blowing up people we're suspicious of". It goes perfectly with "imprisoning and/or deporting people we're suspicious of".
And by “suspicious of” you mean “bigoted against”.
but also: exploit the oil
Turns out "anti-woke" was just a rebrand of good old bigotry. I am shocked.
it's only war if it's from the Middle East region of the world, otherwise it's just sparkling law enforcement
Special law enforcement operation.
I served. While in basic training, the drill sergeants taught us why we salute differently than other countries (probably apocryphal) - because we've "never lost a war". I'm cheeky now and I was then, so I asked about vietnam.
"Police Action" came the terse reply. "We don't talk about that one."
Course by then I'd already signed on the dotted, so...
We’ve never lost a war but we’ve definitely failed to accomplish our objectives a few times along the way. We built the greatest hammer the world has ever seen then asked it to saw lumber and wondered why it failed.
we may need to look up a definition of “won” in the dictionary cause we didn’t win a war exactly 80 years :)
That’s not true at all. We just don’t talk much about the ones we won.
Last year I went to Grenada, which we invaded in the 80s. They love us for it and have statues of Reagan on the island. Without us, they probably would have suffered the same fate as Cuba.
Where would South Korea be without our intervention? Etc.
TIL that we won the Korean War and also a Grenada War :)
learning something new every day…
Well, goes back to your definitions of “won” and “war”. Both are fairly blurry.
We definitely accomplished our objective in Grenada, which we invaded. I’d call it winning a war. There were boots on the ground who did what we sent them to do.
Korea was definitely a war and the ostensible purpose was to repel North Korea, which we and our allies did. If that’s not winning a war, what is it?
Curious here, what's the different salute?
palm-down. If you've ever seen the brits salute, it's palm-forward.
If you thought you were, you were tricked.
I think your sarcasm detector needs calibrating.
Nicolas, Uday, and Qusay Maduro have 48 hours to leave Venezuela. Until then, we have not launched a special military operation.
Yes. The tanker plane with its turned off transponder off the coast is totally not a military operation.
Just a flesh wound.
Real quick, I'm trying to remember a word, it's on the tip of my tongue. It's when one country uses military force in order to make another country have significant internal political changes. Just on the tip of my tongue....
Illegal war of aggression?
War on terror?
Jihad?
As if these kind of people care about such a threat. They do not care about "their" country, "their" country is a resource they control. They very much prefer to sacrifice the whole countries population until the tanks stand in front of their bunker and then they take the "clean self-exit".
We? Seems like a personal vendetta from my perspective. I in no way shape or form want to send Americans to Venezuela for the holidays to start an armed conflict.
You guys get what you voted for, time to take some responsibility.
Without oil it's hard to keep the monstertrucks rolling down the highways, people have to drop their kids off at school!
Gotta think about economy and those sweet sweet deals bringing tons of money and power to orange clan err economy and jobs! Its all fault of mexicans after all! Anyway I am sure there can be a new resort/casino or two somewhere there
We are a net exporter of oil and have been for nearly two decades. We can keep our monster trucks rolling just fine.
How do you know what he voted for?
He seems to imply that he is an US citizen and last time I checked the americans voted for Trump.
Not even 50% of voters voted for Trump
That Trump is even near the reigns of power is obviously an indictment of many facets of American culture and politics, but it doesn't really wash out to every individual American bearing responsibility the way you're suggesting here.
Every citizen in a democracy has a responsibility for the actions of their government. Voting does not magically absolve you from that.
And its hard to see the nuance from the outside when all you hear are threats of economic turmoil, death, destruction and war. Every action of the american government regarding my country has been hostile so far, so forgive me for loosing my patience with the american public. All that talk about "land of the free, home of the brave", but as soon as their government threatens the "free world" americans fold over like lawnchairs. Its incredibly dissapointing.
I think you're being too literal. The "you" in "you voted" was the country, not the person.
We're all stuck with some shared ownership for what our country does even if we detest it.
What did you vote for?
Most of us didn’t vote for Trump. A slim majority of voters did, many of them because he is generally anti-war. (I’ve never liked or voted for him, but his desire to end wars is sincere.)
Many of his ardent supporters are confused as to what we’re doing in Venezuela right now and feel it’s the opposite of what they voted for.
You certainly don’t expect this level of surprises from someone’s second term, but the unprecedented path of his political career has certainly made it much different.
Interestingly in the Netherlands there is a custom that the majority of parliament has to agree to any military missions.
In America one guy can start wars.
Technically he can’t start a war though anymore I’m not even sure where the line is. Is drone bombing a terrorist camp a war? Or an act thereof?
48.34% shouldn’t be confused with majority.
OK, plurality.
> I’ve never liked or voted for him, but his desire to end wars is sincere
I mean, evidently not.
Trump didn't even get a majority of votes cast.
Over 77 million people voted against Trump.
About 73 million were not old enough to vote.
And 88 million people signaled they were fine with either candidate, by not voting. 165 million people out of 264 millions eligible voters supported this.
They did not signal that they were fine with either candidate by not voting.
as someone who has never voted, i am absolutely okay with this characterization. i often hold my tongue when it comes to complaining about political stuff because i dont really feel like i have the right to. i mean, of course i HAVE the right, but the hypocrisy isn’t. to be clear: this is not the same thing as being animated about general gov. malfeasance, which is something that everyone is in the right to complain about, as the operation of the government isn’t a politics-specific issue in a lot of cases.
> don't think one can blame them, not voting can be a legit option for many reasons,
With the exception of people who have religious beliefs prohibiting voting, it’s saying that you don’t feel strongly enough about the differences between the two candidates to pick one. There are some people who can plead various hardships, but most people don’t have that excuse: it really did come down to thinking their life would be fine either way.
No, in the US electoral formula, not every vote for President will make a difference. Seven out of 50 states are close, so in 43 states it’s only a protest vote.
It still matters for the popular vote and all of the downstream candidates. People who stay home inevitably complain about local changes which also were on the ballot.
I strongly support national electoral vote reform but it’s important to remember that every election really does matter.
Then maybe its time to ask yourself: do you live in a democracy when you cannot make your vote count?
Or thinking they were sunk either way.
Their intend may have been another, but the outcome is that they supported whoever was winning.
Ridiculous. Do you blame all Venezuelans for their current government? You shouldn't.
Yes. Chavez was democratically elected. Maduro is not an alien he was born in Venezuela.
Why did Venezuela become what it is today? Every citizen is responsible for what their country turned into.
Ofcourse I do not expect anyone in the Venezuelan diaspora do any kind of introspection or soul-searching.
Venezuela was a beautiful South American Switzerland and it is all the fault of the evil Cubans.
In a democracy every citizen is responsible for the actions of their state.
Not the people who voted for the losing candidates!
In a healthy democracy there are more ways than just voting to influence the countrys political affairs. Democracy has a price, voting every four years is not enough.
We don’t elect Presidents based on getting a majority of votes of all US citizens, even if they can’t vote.
Do you know why?
> We don’t elect Presidents based on getting a majority of votes of all US citizens, even if they can’t vote.
We don't even elect Presidents based on getting a majority (or even plurality) of all voters who actually vote, though the method actually used usually (but not always) also happens to elect the person who does that.
Nope. Sorry. From outside the US, there is just the US. We dont understand your "us vs them" tribalism nor the political divide. Every US citizen at this point is responsible for what's going on. Regardless of who you voted for. All of this is due to decades of complacency by the citizenry, it's not some sudden surprising coup.
I'm not saying the rest of the world is in the clear though. I think many countries are headed in a similar direction. Hopefully this is the wakeup call we all need to step up and arrest this slide into authoritarianism that's happening everywhere.
The recent elections in the U.S. went mostly anti-Trump. Is that the type of action you are calling for? Or did you want something more than running for office and voting?
Sorry, I don't know what elections you are talking about. The only one that I'm aware of was last year's election, which was very much the opposite of anti-trump.
And still Trump reigns without a care. But I am sure the next flipped seat in some mayor-election will bring him to his knees. Just one more lawsuit and we have him, just one more impeachment, pretty please.
Venezuelans also don't want you to send Americans.
I don't think anyone in the world besides the deranged fanbase wants to see this.
~60% of the 8M people that fled Venezuela are incline to support a military intervention, that number goes down to 40% estimated for those still inside, so about more than half the country want external action to get out of the dictatorship. That percentage is for external action, the percentage that voted against the dictator in the stolen election last year was calculated at 76%; so no, is definitely not just the MAGA fan base that want to see something happen.
A bad situation is not improved by an even worse one. It does speaks volumes to the desperation of Venezuelans that many would rather their own country get invaded if that rids them of Maduro.
So you know better than the poor brown people?
Except last few times it went so well for the countries where "intervention" happen.
Also are they in favor to replacing this dictator with another pro-Trump one?
Current US president have a weak spot for every dictator and authoritarian leader in the world: El Salvador, Russia, Hungary, etc.
Might be not the best candidate to deal with dictators...
So Maria machado, the recipient of the Nobel peace prize in 2025 is a would be dictator ?
We have some interesting precedents to compare notes with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aung_San_Suu_Kyi
That did not quite go according to plan either. Definitely not a dictatorship but not exactly clean and the end result is not so far off from where they started. Venezuela could easily end up worse than it is today.
Why do you believe some civil opposition leader will end up im power after foreign military intervention?
Usually people who end up in power are ones best at shooting others invluding shooting civil politicians.
> Also are they in favor to replacing this dictator with another pro-Trump one?
When your options are being poor, starved to death or dissapeared during the last 25 years, you take any chance for a change
You’d be surprised. Last month on a visit to the U.S., 8/10 Uber drivers I had were Venezuelan. I’m a fluent Spanish speaker so I engaged in this very topic. The vast majority of them wanted Maduro out, and the fastest way to that is through U.S. intervention. They were not opposed to this.
1. This is a bit of a selection bias, since they are in the US, they aren't going to be the ones in the line of fire. It's all upshot for them.
2. Turn back the clock two decades ago, I'm sure plenty of ex-pat Iraqis wanted Saddam out, but half a million dead and a ten-year civil war and also fucking ISIS may have been a bit above what they were willing to pay. If I were living in a country ruled by a deranged autocrat (...), I too would like to see him removed, but that doesn't mean I'd invite war over it. (And the knives-out-nightly-disappearance repression that will inevitably follow.)
3. Given who Trump sucks up to and appoints, I'm sure he'll find his own monster to replace Maduro with. (The US track record with this in the Americas has been incredibly awful, but I've no doubt that he can set a new lowest bar.) He sure as shit won't be putting some lady who won a peace prize in charge.
Yes, I suppose you have successfully provided a counter-argument to my point, and I have to concede it - there are people with more skin in the game than the average MAGA who want to stick their former neighbours' hands in the fire, to check if it is hot.
Political expats and exiles do tend to favor invasions of their countries more than the people who live in them do, and I've not considered their viewpoints in this.
María Corina Machado believes this. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025. Attacking Venezuela would still be illegal, but it would achieve her aims.
We really need a decent channel to petition other countries, as the US public.
Maybe we could write on a legal pad and hold it up in the rear window as we pass them on the highway.
Or you could make like the French and actually do something about the death and destruction your nation subjects the rest of the planet to.
It's funny how the French are portrayed as cowards in American popular culture, when in reality the French would've gotten the guillotines out already while the Americans... cower.
> It's funny how the French are portrayed as cowards
Are they? Where does that come from?
It used to be I guess a slur, "surrender monkeys," because France surrendered during WWII and there was a Nazi-collaborator government established filled with French politicians.
It's unfair given the reality and importance of the French resistance, but, that's where it comes from.
That one was the brits if I'm not mistaken - Jeremy Clarkson specifically (who I have a lot of affection for - Top Gear was a significant part of my childhood, but he does make an art out of being offensively wrong).
It seems to have originated in The Simpsons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkey...
not even a joke, we're skipping the 4th and celebrating bastille day this year. Ten days apart and the food and drink are just better.
Certainly not the current French, though.
They no longer get the guillotines out, but they still protest like no one else.
Not always about the right issues, but at least they have the spirit
You sure? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/block-everything-protes...
I think we were talking about the guillotine earlier on
They're metaphoric these days ;)
[dead]
You have to own it at this stage. Even if you didn't vote for it. Particularly as that tangerine is in for a second innings. All the world wants to hear is what you're doing to fight the situation, not that it's not your fault.
Thanks
Can’t you do it safely, with transponder on? It’s not like it will get softer or anything.
I believe the term of art de jour is “special military operation”
That's the term in Russia. In the USA it's "War on Terror-drugism".
Is it an inside joke I missed? 'Militarily' here and another comment had 'Bigly'. Is it a Trumpism?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/militarily
Common sense would dictate that a military aircraft conducting military operations off the coast of a hostile nation tend to not want to broadcast their position to the world. So not outrageous, just unfortunate. It's extremely common.
I’m sorry, which hostile nation?
The United States.
The jet was not flying right outside the United States though.
Did you even read the comment thread before responding to GP? You're just spreading misinformation.
His point is that the United States is the country acting in a hostile fashion.
It’s satire, a hit at global geopolitics where the US is placed as the global police. A joke, if you will.
I read about this incident in detail even before it was posted on HN.
What day is it?
[dead]
On the other side it is perfectly visible on radar (and can be heard (and with jet having its own characteristic signature it can be tracked even by WWII microphone array like they did back then) and visible in binoculars from large distance in nice Caribbean weather), so it is hiding only from civilians. Security by obscurity kind of. That is especially so in the case of a slow large non-maneuvering tanker plane like here.
And why would a tanker plane come close to and even enter the hostile airspace?! may be one has to check Hegseth's Signal to get an answer for that, probably it is something like "big plane -> Scary!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mUbmJ1-sNs.
The information broadcast by transponder is significantly more precise than what you will get with radar, microphone array, or binoculars.
GPS Lat & Long Barometric Altitude Ground speed & track angle Rate of climb/descent
All updated every second or so.
I can just about guarantee it has nothing to do with targeting and a lot to do with making Venezuela unsure when strikes are about to start, both for security of the forces launching the eventual strikes (if any) and to harass/wear-down Venezuelan air defenses by keeping them very alert.
If our aircaft were flying transponders-on during all these exercises then suddenly went dark, it’d signal imminent attack. This keeps them guessing. Possibly we’re even playing around with having them on some of the time for some aircraft, and off at other times.
We don’t do that with AWACS and such near Russia because we’re not posturing that we may attack them any day now, and want to avoid both accidental and “accidental” encounters with Russian weapons by making them very visible. In this case, an accidental engagement by Venezuelan forces probably isn’t something US leadership would be sad about.
I live near JBLM in Washington. I am routinely overflown by helicopters and planes (C-17s) often with their transponders off (I have an ADS-B receiver running on a VM). These are training flights that are not going anywhere outside of the Puget Sound region. For added fun, I'm also pretty close to several Sea-Tac approaches.
> is significantly more precise than what you will get with radar
Is that increase in precision much larger than the plane itself? If it's not then it couldn't possibly matter in this application.
Further radar is not a static image. The radar is constantly sweeping the sky, taking multiple measurements, and in some cases using filtering to avoid noise and jitter.
> GPS Lat & Long Barometric Altitude Ground speed & track angle Rate of climb/descent
You get or synthesize every one of those with radar as well.
Yes, ADS-B is significantly more precise than civilian primary radar returns. That's why the FAA is trying to move away from radar. The JetBlue near miss was about 150 miles from Curacao ATC which is beyond what most ASR systems cover (around half that).
Military radar is a different beast, but even then you're still trying to figure out what the returns mean. ADS-B explicitly says hey there are two aircraft in a tiny space. Civilian radar is likely not precise enough to identify two aircraft that close.
Isn't altitude information also one of the important things about ADS-B that radar lacks?
Although ADS-B is self reported and "vulnerable" to bad/spoofed info.
My CFI and I once saw ADS-B data from one of the startups near Palo Alto airport in California reporting supersonic speeds... at ground level, no less.
Edit: still have it in my email, heh. It was a Kitty Hawk Cora, N306XZ, reporting 933kts at 50'.
Civilian vs military. The military can get altitude information from primary radar.
Even good stereopair like a WWI navy guns rangefinder, will give you all that info, of course not precise enough to lock a missile - well, transponder also wouldn't let you to anyway, and thus all that transponder precision is pointless in that context.
A missile only needs to get close enough for its sensors to take over for the final approach right? Transponder data should be quite enough for that, especially for a kc-46
Any of the methods i mentioned is enough to get missile close, except may be microphones as limited speed of sound means that the plane would have moved significantly from the observed position, though again even that would have allowed to put missile into the vicinity and in general direction.
Watching Ukraine videos there is new game in town though - relatively cheap IR cameras. Using IR, day or night, you can detect a jet plane from very large distances and just guide missile to the plane computer-game-joystick style.
If you initiate a military conflict with another nation, the proper thing to do is to declare war first.
Even better, we should all wear colorful coats and form a nice big line in an open field before we fight too! There are rules! Are we not gentlemen?
You jest, but even in the age of modern warfare, countries still actively declare war and formally notify the other country, even if a bit late, with a formal declaration. The notable exceptions being of course the USA and the USSR and Russia, which like to call their wars "police actions" and "special military operations".
I would contend that we live in an era of “5th Generation” undeclared wars between powers. I don’t personally draw a line between a missile attack and a shipment of fentanyl or cocaine which will kill citizens all the same.
the redcoats didn't wear colorful coats and form nice big lines because they were stupid. They beat Napolean using similar tactics. And they didn't lose to the US because of these tactics.
Maybe you should reflect on why people who have lead others in combat have decided that there should be rules to war before you declare that rules of war are a bad idea.
The Red Coats lost quite a few battles to their aged tactics against the Patriots. So much so that officers complained about the ungentlemanly conduct routinely in their correspondence.
As far as our modern, temporary notion of “rules of war,” go, it’s because it suited the victor and gives them what they feel is an edge and an air of superiority. I don’t say this to be smug either, just look at how well the Geneva Suggestions worked out for the North Vietnamese or the Taliban. They ignored the and won.
Like it or not, the modern nation-state’s notions of Rules of War are going to quickly become a bygone relic of a simpler time, as was a formal British fighting line.
Ah, yes, the USA is the underdog here, they cannot win at war unless they ignore the conventions of war.
Arguably, yes?
Had the US somehow magically lost WWII, the firebombing atrocities would almost certainly have had a few Air Corp generals executed by the victor.
We could just as well look at the systemic atrocities committed against the Vietnamese civilian population and yet we still lost that war.
Excepting the Gulf War, how far back to we go to find something America has won (somewhat) cleanly?
> Arguably, yes?
No.
The USA is the strongest military power in the world. They are not the underdog. If they resort to war crimes or unfairness, it's not because they are the underdogs; it's because this is what top dogs do. Let's not make excuses for them.
Your statement presumes that the US fights dirtier than others.
Who is this magical war-winning nation that only fights fairly?
I'm not saying one can't win without war crimes, I'm saying it simply doesn't ever seem to happen.
Do you also make fun of people who condemn war crimes?
[flagged]
> a national security operation
You answered your own question here.
Military planes doing military things always fly with their transponder off. It would be suicide not to.
Military planes often deliberately have them on; not every mission is secretive. You can often see NATO planes on FlightAware in the Black Sea clearly keeping an eye on the Ukraine theatre.
Example: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FORTE10/history/20230821...
I was speaking perhaps too casually, but "military things" was meant to mean offensive operations. The kind of things where you might expect to be fired upon (or at least need to take precautions against that happening). A transponder is a homing beacon for missiles.
You watch too many movies, there are plenty of other things for the missiles to track. Transponder in civilian airspace is just how you keep planes from crashing into each other.
I don't watch those kinds of movies. I have, on the other hand, worked for a large aerospace firm supplying these weapon systems.
A transponder is how civilian planes tell exactly where they are relative to each other. Missiles use IR, radar-bounce, and other methods for the last-mile delivery of explode-y bits, but when launched from afar (e.g. a surface-to-air missile launched from land towards something over the horizon) they need to be pre-loaded with the exact position of the target, as they need to get close to it before switching to a homing mechanism. If the target has a radio transponder, that makes this step trivially easy.
If Venezuela wanted to shoot one of these planes down, with the transponder off the missile is as likely to lock on to a commercial airliner. They're not going to take that risk.
And they often deliberately have them off, even for training flights, at least looking at my ADS-B receivers raw output and correlating to FA/FR24/etc.
Yes? I’m contesting the “always” bit, nothing more.
The US could issue a notice of an Alert Area where military operations are in progress AND could coordinate with Dutch airspace authorities.
US AWACS has the capability to identify civilian aircraft and route military traffic well clear of civil traffic.
They could also not invade a country that did nothing to attack them, but I guess that’s asking too much.
Venezuela invaded the US by not selling the US oil at US terms
We can arrest Maduro for drug trafficking and then pardon him later for being set up by Biden.
Slap him with sanctions for human rights violations then drop them and invite him to the white house.
[flagged]
Everyone expects war from americans but at this point I wouldn't be surprised if Trump chickened out.
I downvoted you. Sorry, that's just my SOP when I read this things like "I know I will get a downvote"
thanks for proving my prediction
No such thing was proven. You received a downvote automatically for suggesting that you'd get one for expressing a view.
Notice was put out NOV
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/us_restrictions...
A sizable chunk of the world is currently considered hazardous for commercial aviation.[1] Ops.group maintains a quick reference map. It's bad.
[1] https://safeairspace.net/
That map projection is the worst choice possible. It makes Russia appear much larger in relation to e. g. Africa than it really is.
> That map projection is the worst choice possible.
For navigation, the Mercator projection is useful, because a straight line on the chart is where you go with a constant bearing. Aerial navigation is waypoint/bearing/waypoint/bearing. So most aviation maps are Mercator.
Yeah that's not for TNCF (curacao) but venezuela (SVZM) airspace. So that's approximately zero excuse.
[dead]
Being allies really doesn't mean anything anymore, does it?
I really wonder how long it will take to rebuild all these burned bridges.
What does allies have to do with this situation? Both aircraft involved were American.
Happened in Dutch Caribbean controlled Airspace
TIL Europe still has some presence in the Americas. Thought all of that was gone with the Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine was about preventing colonial powers from enacting NEW efforts to reach into the Americas, not about getting rid of previous control.
"The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects FOR FUTURE COLONIZATION by any European powers." (emphasis mine)
https://usinfo.org/PUBS/LivingDoc_e/monroe.htm
France's longest land border is the one it shares with Brazil.
You may find this interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_territories_of_members...
Yeah, you can visit the EU by… sailing a ways Northeast(ish) from Maine, until you’re just south of (a part of) Canada. And by going to the Caribbean. And South America.
Mostly France and the Netherlands.
Ty this is great
So the same people he threatened to take greenland from?
I'm unsure if you're making a joke that flies over my head, but no Greenland is Danish, not Dutch.
That'd be the Danish.
That's why i asked, i glanced through wiki first. Thanks.
Will the US ever get back to where they were, as the world's only superpower and "world police"?
I just don't see how we're going back.
unlikely, at least not during this generation. even putting aside the current admin, the US has (to put it extremely lightly) long failed to police its own and certain "allies'" behavior, which undermines the concept altogether.
at this point, there are unfortunately no "good guys" at the state level.
Someone has to prevent the execution of journalist who speak out against the regime and that has no due process and also have highest execution rate of any country. They labeled "Authoritarian state" by Amnesty International and Humans Rights Watch and "Systemic human-rights violator" by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Oh wait, i mixed up Saudi Arabia one of the US's closets allies with Venezuela.
generations
meh, bridges get constantly burned and rebuilt between allies and enemies both - just another day really
If a bridge gets built then destroyed, built then destroyed, built then destroyed and so on, people will stop using it. They'll also stop trusting the bridge builder.
You run into trouble if someone manages to set all of them on fire at once.
People all over the world are already building new bridges to places like China, so even if the old ones are rebuilt, they might get substantially less use.
Delivered directly to your doorstep from the government of “no new wars”, guided by “peace president”.
Nothing says "no wars" than naming a minister of War
Hey, come on, you don't win a FIFA Peace Prize unless you absolutely deserve one.
US military planes & helis sure seem to be doing a lot of endangering people lately...and not the right ones
I always get the impression that whenever military/police have the option to turn off ADS-B, they do. Not just in the US or by US forces. Not just on sensitive flights. I don't think the toggle ever gets used.
I'm no expert but I'd imagine they would mostly do this in areas where commercials airliners aren't?
Not really. I live next to an airport with both a civilian and military presence (and an alternate for a NATO airbase). The number of military/police flights that I can only see on MLAT is pretty worrying. I don't think BPol has ever turned their "stealth" switch off.
Really freaks me out.
Nothing beats a JetBlue holiday
In other news, the National Defense Authorization Act working its way through congress is trying to loosen restrictions around DCA that were put in place after a military helicopter collided with a passenger jet.
Call me crazy, but I think any time, any where, without any exceptions whatsoever, someone wants to fly a multi-ton chunk of metal, they need to broadcast telemetry in a cleartext, open standard.
I understand that this might be disruptive to people who want to drop explosives on other people, and while this disruption is a fantastic benefit, it's only a side-effect.
To be sure, the relevant statutory regulation[1] didn't always read the way how it does.
[1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...
Yeah, exactly. I've been watching adsb activity over my house for years, and in the past few weeks, for the first time, I have activity (helicopter and jet) in my area that it not visible.
It's unnerving, and unbecoming of an egalitarian society.
> The Air Force jet then entered Venezuelan airspace, the JetBlue pilot said. "We almost had a mid-air collision up here."
They simply should stay the fuck away from that airspace then. And by that I don't mean JetBlue.
"Should" is a cute word. It does a lot of work, and accomplishes nothing.
"We should cure cancer." "I should exercise." "Nations should not torture people."
So never fly in or out of DCA, and avoid anywhere near Venezuela.
Why is that?
This near miss plus that helicopter thing, I assume: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Potomac_River_mid-air_col...
Amazing how bad this has gotten under this administration. They have turned the air into a free for all match.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46269601
This perhaps isn't the lind of lethality the DoD has in mind.
Isn't this technically an act of war against the Netherlands?
Anything can be an act of war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jenkins%27_Ear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War_(1859)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War
Or we just make them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell%27s_presentation_...
No, the Netherlands won't consider this to be anything of the sort.
[dead]
We have the best mid-air collisions. Noone does it better, or so people tell me. We don't do sleepy silent disappearances over the Bermuda Triangle, that's SAD!! We blow em up, BIGLY, in someone else's airspace. A great PRESIDENT knows how to WIN at mid-air collisions. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Not nearly enough randomly capitalised words
Nah. That place is well deserved by Russia. But they have missile - plane collisions :)
Oh yes as if the Great US of A didn't shoot down passenger jets
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/july-3/u-s-warsh...
There's a marked difference between this and the Russian one: the Americans owned their mistake and paid reparations. The Russians denied and keep denying.
Mistakes aren't good, but pretending that you didn't make them adds insult to injury.
The current administration would _absolutely_ deny any such mistake.
As much as the current administration turns my stomach, previous ones are not absolved from weaseling their way out of catastrophic mistakes, either.
It's sort of funny that this thread turned into a USA vs Russia debate when they both play the same games. One of them is just slightly better at pretending like they're playing fair and friendly. My take-away from that is once an organized body, be it a country, corporation or religion, gets very large and holds a lot of power, they will inevitably start doing bad things.
"As part of the settlement, the US did not admit liability for the shootdown."
Doesn't sound to me like owning your mistake.
Isn't the famous quote:
'I'll never apologize for the United States of America, I don't care what the facts are'.
in the context of that after all?
Cermis cough cable car cough
Nah you don't understand. When Americans shoot down a plane, it's called "Liberation". You see, by doing so they liberate our souls from this fallen World, which is good!
The major difference being that the US crew got medals for 'meritorious service', including a Navy Commendation Medal and a Legion of Merit. Russia is not quite that ballsy over accidentally butchering civilians.
> Russia is not quite that ballsy over accidentally butchering civilians.
I don't know about accidental, but if anyone thinks Russia is not ballsy about butchering civilians, they need a refresher on Russia's wars during the last few decades. Last few years would be enough too. It's a principle of their military affairs.
Switch on the critical thinking part of your brain and go read about american war crimes, the reality is much dirtier than "we're Good and they're Evil". It's not a competition so I'm not going to start ranking armies but they all have their fair share of atrocities.
What makes you think I'm not thinking critically? You're the person here who seems to be thinking in terms of competition, as far as I can tell. And, who's we?
Not sure if you're being subtly apologetic, so I'll elaborate my point. Russian commanders that led campaigns in Syria got nicknames like Butcher of Aleppo and General Armageddon, for not only using scorched earth tactics, indiscriminate bombing, but actually systemically bombing schools, hospitals, field clinics, bread lines. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called it "crimes of historic proportions." Aid organizations would actually stonewall the UN, because through UN Russia would find out where the bread lines are and would bomb them. These are not accidents, or freak, isolated occurances: it's doctrine. Look at Mariupol. Or, Ukraine in general.
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Bagram collection point ? The wikileak scandals ? 100k+ civilians dead in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. 15%+ of drone strike victims being civilian over the last 20 years
These are all accidents too I assume ? Idk what to expect from people who are currently blowing up random boats in international waters and who just declared fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction lmao
Guy, you're the only one here acting like this is a competition. Do you think what Russia does is somehow more acceptable if you can find other criminals? Yeah, just lean into it. Good luck with that.
I was specifically talking about accidental shootdowns of civilian airliners. Leave your politics out of this.
Unless you have tangible evidence that MH17 was deliberately downed. In which case I am sure people would just love to see that.
The US is trying to one-up Russia on that by using another plane as the missile.
[flagged]
> Caribbean nation of Curacao
It's the first time I hear someone calls Curaçao a "nation". It's just the normal Dutch island, not even some special status territory. Yes, it's in Carribean, but why do they omit "Dutch" and call it a "Carribean nation"?
I find words in the same category as "country", "nation", "state", etc are increasingly used interchangeably. Largely because they tend to be far more specific than people mean to be... but also because generic terms like "polity" never caught on in the mainstream. A similar thing is how "nation-states" would appear to be the only type of place worth worrying about highly organized attacks from in infosec, until you ask them to define what they consider a nation-state.
That said, I don't think it's accurate to paint Curaçao as just another normal Dutch island the same as any other. It's really a constituent country that's part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, just not a sovereign state or a nation.
It's hard to use them consistently because there isn't a single universally accepted definition.
Most people would consider the Netherlands a "country", but now we have a country within that country. Israel is a state, Japan is a state, but there are 50 states in the United States. "[People's] Republic of XYZ" generally refers to a sovereign state, but Russia has republics inside. You can't just call something what the locals call it and expect that your readers will get the picture. Even worse, people are often deeply divided as to what a given territory should be called.
So I will generally forgive journalists for picking a neutral-sounding, ambiguous expression in cases like this. What matters here is that the Dutch control this airspace, regardless of Curaçao's status within their kingdom.
A nation-state is a state whose borders and (originally) citizenship are largely defined by a singular nationality. Israel and Japan, for example. Belgium and Canada are not nation states: they are split into French and Flemish, and Anglo and French nationalities, respectively.
It is a 19th century term that rarely applies these days, but still sees some residual usage.
To complete the other half of the story for those not familiar: most all infosec references to "nation-state attack" instead use it to mean "government backed attack" (regardless if a nation-state is involved in the context).
What if they use it to mean entities that are both states and nations, as opposed to the states, that some nations are composed of.
Anglo, French _and Aboriginal_ nationalities. That's not a minor detail to exclude.
In the concept of a “nation-state”, it is accurate. 20% of Israel’s population is non-Jewish, but it is still accurately described as a Jewish nation.
I’m not defending the morality of this classification scheme, just trying by to be accurate. It dates to the 19th century and is not with the times today, which is why I generally prefer to avoid the term myself.
Lots of small islands have similar status, for example The Cayman Islands, Bermuda & Puerto Rico.
I'm a state actor because I always remember my lines when I go up on stage.
It's not part of the country the Netherlands anymore. They voted to leave.
They're still in the kingdom which means they're not completely on their own but nation is a good word.
Curacao has been a country that is part of the kingdom of the Netherlands since 2010.
technically, it's a country within the Kingdom :)
the bigger question is: what business does the Netherlands have all the way across the ocean in an island? Who gave them the "right" to own it?
What do you mean "all the way across the ocean". From where? The distance from Curaçao to the Dutch people is exactly zero.
What "right" are you talking about, is there an agency where we file a claim, and it issues us "rights"?
All people from all nations, tribes and states came from somewhere, sometimes even replacing the local population. Sometimes peacefully, like Anglo-Saxons pushed out local Britons in England, sometimes violently, like Normans invaded and conquered England.
Or like the rich and diverse American Indian history -- tribes came and went, sometimes replaced, pushed out, conquered or assimilated with previous peoples who lived there. Please define "right".
> Sometimes peacefully, like Anglo-Saxons pushed out local Britons in England
The Battle of Chester has entered the chat.
No one ever "peacefully" pushes anyone else out of their homes.
Naah, I'm pretty sure history can find an example of pretty much anything. Here's another example (just less researched) -- Slavic dispersion in Europe. And I'm 100% sure there a lot of other examples of peaceful expansion or assimilation, because for the most history land was abundant, but shortage of hands to tend to it. There was just no reason to fight (and record it).
It doesn't mean some kings declared that land their own (some declared everything), but they couldn't enforce it. So usually it boiled down to main argument whether something is "yours" -- collecting taxes (aka tribute). As long as someone's can enforce collecting tribute, then they deserve to have the title of "owning" it.
Btw, One of the ways historians determine whether migration was mostly peaceful is by looking at archeological gender structure -- if there's a lot of female immigrants (e.g. Slavic expansion), then they are more likely to be moving by whole families. But if there are few females -- more likely it was invasion (e.g. Huns). Not absolute signal of course, as nothing is in history.
[flagged]
OK so now do America and Hawaii or Puerto Rico.
How far is Hawaii from the USA?
The same business the US has in Guam or Puerto Rico, the UK in the Bahamas etc. It was a colony. They decided to become independent but still part of the kingdom of the Netherlands which was their choice. So the current status is such because the people of Curacao have decided they wanted it this way.
To be more accurate: the same business anyone who isn't a Native American has in the US.
We didn't have the right, obviously, but it has happened and we need to deal with the current situation. And the Netherlands has offered them sovereignty multiple times in the last fifty years, they can leave anytime they want. But nowadays they want to stay in the kingdom, mostly because it offers them some security and stability.
You could pick up a history textbook and find out.
[dead]
Not sure I’d call crossing traffic “within a few miles” a near-miss. Even at full cruising speed of 500-600MPH (less because the JetBlue was still on a climb) the civilian aircraft would cover a mile in 6-7 seconds, so we are talking 18 to 24 seconds to close 3-4 miles.
Also, it a common for military aircraft to not have a transponder on, especially in the vicinity of threats. Without a transponder the civilian aircraft TCAS/ACAS would not warn about traffic.
Not sure how far off the coast of Venezuela this occurred, but there are some very real SAM threats the Air Force aircraft would need to worry about.
(edited typos)
Large aircraft take a while to avoid collisions due to their size and both jets are in motion. So this could have been within 5-10 seconds of a collision depending on specifics. The critical issue is the civilian aircraft “took evasive action on Friday to avoid a mid-air collision with a U.S. Air Force tanker plane near Venezuela, a pilot said in an air traffic control recording.”
Which needs to be reported as it then can impact other air traffic to avoid further issues.
If both craft took the same evasive action? Still could be a collison. A few seconds is so little to play with.
Even if the military plane had its transponder off, the civilian plane didn't. The military pilot had no justification for not knowing the civilian plane was there and at a minimum adjusting its altitude to make this a non issue.
And the tanker was likely supervised from an AWACS aircraft that probably should’ve flagged this, too.
> Not sure I’d call crossing traffic “within a few miles” a near-miss. Even at full cruising speed of 500-600MPH (less because the JetBlue was still on a climb) the civilian aircraft would cover a mile in 6-7 seconds, so we are talking 18 to 24 seconds to close 3-4 miles.
Sweet, so they've got less than half a minute to avoid a collision.
> Not sure how far off the coast of Venezuela this occurred
64km off the coast of Venezuela.
> Also, it a common for military aircraft to not have a transponder on
Is it actually common for military aircrafts with transponders off to mix and match with public traffic in activate flight regions? One would think if there is threats somewhere, they'd first mark the region as restricted, so no public airplanes go there in the first place, then they can fly without the transponders.
> Is it actually common for military aircrafts with transponders off to mix and match with public traffic in activate flight regions?
As a pilot, I can tell you it happens all the time. Even in US domestic airspace. Transponder use is optional for the military, and they will turn them off for some training missions. (Or in this case, a real mission.)
No, they don't close the airspace when this is being done.
The pilots of both aircraft (civilian and military) are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic. The military aircraft should also be keeping an eye on primary radar.
(Transponder use is also optional for some civilian aircraft, btw.)
> The pilots of both aircraft are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic.
How's that supposed to work with Instrument Flight Rules, for which you literally train by wearing glasses which block your view outside the window [0]? And how are you supposed to spot an airplane coming at you with a closing speed of 1000 mph (1600 kmh)? It'll go from impossible-to-see to collision in a few seconds - which is why you won't see any "they didn't look outside the window enough" in the report of accidents like Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907.
The whole point of Air Traffic Control is to control air traffic. Sure, there's plenty of uncontrolled airspace where you do indeed have to look out for traffic, but it's uncontrolled precisely because it rarely if ever sees commercial traffic.
[0]: https://www.sportys.com/jeppshades-ifr-training-glasses.html
> How's that supposed to work with Instrument Flight Rules, for which you literally train by wearing glasses which block your view outside the window [0]?
If you're wearing "foggles" (the technical term is a "view limiting device"), you're legally required to have a safety pilot who is responsible for maintaining visual watch.
You never, ever wear those while flying solo.
> And how are you supposed to spot an airplane coming at you with a closing speed of 1000 mph (1600 kmh)?
First, this near-miss was with a refueling tanker, which only travels at normal large-jet speed and is quite large.
If it was a fighter jet, you're right, it would be very hard to see. But frankly, compared to a fighter jet, everyone else might as well be a stationary object in the sky in terms of speed and maneuverability - so you're just relying on the fighter jet not to hit you. (They also have onboard primary radar and other fancy toys - so you hope they have more situational awareness of non-participating aircraft.)
> The whole point of Air Traffic Control is to control air traffic. Sure, there's plenty of uncontrolled airspace where you do indeed have to look out for traffic, but it's uncontrolled precisely because it rarely if ever sees commercial traffic.
Most airspace below 18,000 feet is still "controlled airspace", even though you have to look out for traffic - including commercial traffic. The big jets don't like to stay down there any longer than they have to, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
Being on an IFR clearance only guarantees that you're deconflicted with other IFR traffic. There's always the risk that there's non-participating traffic, especially in visual conditions (VMC). Class A airspace and transponder-required airspace help reduce this risk, but it's never completely eliminated.
Also, more importantly: The military largely plays by their own rules, entirely outside of the FAA.
I've been buzzed by a flight of military helicopters in the New Mexico desert. Not intentionally, they just happened to overfly my tent, and I just happened to have cell service somehow. I checked ADSB and sure enough they were flying dark.
Not necessarily; the same remoteness that made cell signal sparse likely makes ADS-B ground stations unlikely. There has to be one in range for it to show up places like FlightAware. Plenty of dead spots; you can help expand the network! https://www.flightaware.com/adsb/piaware/build/
I have an ADS-B receiver on a computer here, and am overhead a number of flight paths for JBLM.
The above comment is accurate, plenty of local training helicopter flights will be fully or partly dark (lights and/or transponders off), looking at my receiver's raw output stream.
ADSB is not mandatory in the US below FL100 or FL180 (10000/18000 feet), that covers most helicopter flights.
It depends also on the website you are using to track. I have an ADSB receiver that publishes to multiple tracking websites (the same data, unfiltered), and not all of them publish all the data. Flightradar24 doesn't show most of the military aircraft - I can see them on my local tracking interface but they are not shown on their website.
> The pilots of both aircraft (civilian and military) are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic. The military aircraft should also be keeping an eye on primary radar.
So in your opinion, that was went wrong here, the military/pilot of the refueling plane didn't actually keep visual watch for traffic nor radar?
I wasn't there and don't know all the facts, so I'm not going to attempt to assign blame in this specific instance.
But speaking generally, I'll just say: If you're flying in VMC conditions (good weather), you're always required to see-and-avoid. Even if you're on an IFR clearance. Everything else is just considered an aid for situational awareness.
> I wasn't there and don't know all the facts, so I'm not going to attempt to assign blame in this specific instance.
Didn't you already though? You said "pilots [..] are supposed to be keeping a constant visual watch for traffic", and considering one of the parties has a filed flight plan and had their transponder turned on, I can't really read it any way except "the pilots of the military aircraft didn't do what they were supposed to" which is implicitly blaming them, or am I missing some angle/interpretation of what you said?
I don't believe that would be incorrect, because of the context, but I'm curious why'd you suddenly hesitate to say it seems to be the fault of the military here, yet previous comment made that hint implicitly.
> Didn't you already though?
No, I stated the regulations, in reply to the parent comment about transponder rules.
I don't know what the weather conditions were, I don't know what the sight-picture was from each aircraft, I don't know if any equipment was malfunctioning, and we don't have a statement from the military pilot.
Many pilots are very hesitant to (publicly) assign blame in an incident without all the facts, since the details do matter. It's too easy to jump to conclusions otherwise.
If the positioning [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUcs1LCjhcs) is at all close to accurate, that looks closer to 300km, with the entirety of Aruba between them & the closest point in Venezuela. (Or all of Curaçao, but I think that line is longer.)
(TFA does say 64 km, though.)
Edit: I'm not sure about 64 km. The 64km is for the Curaçao departing flight, but Curaçao's airport is itself 80 km from Venezuela, and they headed north pretty immediately? I.e., … they would have never been < 80 km…?
> Edit: I'm not sure about 64 km. The 64km is for the Curaçao departing flight, but Curaçao's airport is itself 80 km from Venezuela, and they headed north pretty immediately? I.e., … they would have never been < 80 km…?
If you take off from Curaçao and head like 10km west before you've actually left the island, you end up pretty much within 64km of Adicora, Venezuela. Probably what they meant I guess.
Threats are not to civilian aircraft. If conflict occurs areas would become restricted.
> Not sure I’d call crossing traffic “within a few miles” a near-miss.
Generally, from what I can find, the FAA definition is <500ft, so no, a few miles is potentially an issue, but not what would generally be categorized as a near miss unless there is some situational wrinkle that applies here.
The Air Force is probably used to flying much closer to one another, but civilians are not. Even in a busy airspace, jet airliners are usually kept apart >1000ft vertically, and much more horizontally in the direction they're moving. These birds can fly 500ft in less than 1 second after all.
> The Air Force is probably used to flying much closer to one another, but civilians are not.
The FAA isn’t primarily concerned with the Air Force. They investigate and address loss of separation incidents that fall short of rheir definition of near misses, they just don’t describe them as near misses.
I wasn't talking about the FAA definition specifically, only that military pilots probably have a narrower definition of a near miss than civilians do.
They also seem to be overconfident in their ability to identify, track and evade other aircraft. Example: the Helicopter pilot who crashed into a civilian jet over the Potomac earlier this year.
Well common enroute separation is 5NM so in aviation, it's close.
Is there a NOTAM for military traffic on this area?
The FAA did warn about military ops in the area. Good question; not sure they issued a NOTAM.
> there are some very real SAM threats the Air Force aircraft would need to worry about
The US Air Force should /absolutely/ be worried about Venezuela fighting back, with SAMs or otherwise. This military action and potential war is a travesty and the whole world should condemn and ostracize the USA immediately.
What if it was dark, or cloudy? Or the pilots weren't looking outside?