offline
- Pridružio: 25 Jun 2013
- Poruke: 1216
|
Napisano: 07 Jul 2013 20:15
Malo bih dodao ovoj temi neke isecke iz jedne interesantne knjige uradjene od strane danskih autora "Mathematics and War":
On 12th April 1999 the passenger train No. 393 was on its way from Beograd to
Ristovac. The attack on the train occurred during its passage across the bridge.
Two planes approached the bridge from the west. The second fired two guided
missiles type AGM –130 on a passenger train on the railway bridge, the first hitting
the centre part of the bridge and the second hitting the second wagon of the moving
train. According to the eye witness report of Zivojin Stanojevic, shortly afterwards
another plane approached and also fired two missiles, this time directed at the socalled
Sarajevo bridge, a road bridge. This description of the attack differs from the
NATO report. The passenger train with a locomotive and four passenger wagons
was completely destroyed. There were 21 dead and 16 injured people.
Reasoning of NATO: The essential parts of the explanation given by NATO
commander in chief for Europe, general Wesley Clark, with regards to this incident
is here completely printed:
This was a case were a pilot had the task to hit a railway bridge that formed
part of an integrated net of traffic and supply in Serbia. He released his missiles
from a plane that was many miles away not being able to set his eyes onto
the bridge, it was a remotely directed attack. And as he tried to make out the
aspired target on the bridge, – and I talked to the team in Aviano, who were
directly involved in this operation – well, as the pilot was trying to make out
the aspired target on the bridge and was trying to work it out and worked it out
and worked it out, and suddenly in the last moment, with less than a second to
go before the launching he caught a flash of movement appearing on the monitor
and that was the train that came in. Unfortunately, he couldn’t dump the
bomb at that point, it was locked, it was going into the target and that was a very
unfortunate incident that he and his team and all of us are very sorry about.
We surely don’t want to cause a collateral damage. The order was to eliminate
the bridge. He realised, after it had happened, that he had not hit the bridge,
but that what he had hit had been the train. He had another target point on the
bridge – it was quite a long bridge – and the pilot believed, that he still had to
accomplish his mission, and so he circled back around. He put his aim point
on the other end of the bridge from where the train had come. By the time the
bomb got close the bridge was covered in smoke and clouds, and again at the
last minute in an uncanny accident, the train had slid forward from the original
impact and parts of the train had moved across the bridge and thus by hitting
the other end of the bridge he indeed caused further damage on the train.
then showed the cockpit video of the plane that fired on the bridge:
The pilot inside the aircraft watches an about 5 inch sized monitor, – he can
see about this much: here you can see: this is the railway bridge, and this is a
much better view than he really had. You can see the rail tracks that run this
way. Look hard on the target point, concentrate exactly on this, and you can
see how, if you are focussed on the job like the pilot was, this train suddenly
appears. It really was unfortunate. Here he came back to try to hit another part
of the bridge, because he was trying to do a job, to eliminate the bridge. Look
at this target point – you can see smoke and other obscurations - he could not
make out clearly what that was exactly. Focus hard to the right on the centre
of the cross. He is about to bring those two crosses together and suddenly, at
the last moment, he realizes that the train that had been hit had continued to
move across the bridge and this way seemingly, the towing engine was hit by
the second bomb. (Press conference, NATO-Main quarter, Brussels, 13th of
April).
There is a detailed expert’s report that proves that the video that showed the
attack was manipulated und due to this the description of the action did not correspond
to the truth.
It can be assumed though, according to the video, that the gunner at first really
aimed at the bridge and wanted to hit it. But when he saw the approaching train
and realised that he would hit the train he didn’t take any action to break off
the attack. The company who produced the guided missiles have contradicted
the description of the NATO commander in chief that the weapons system officer
only saw the small inner section of the monitor. According to this he should
have noticed the train much earlier on the monitor than it was claimed and could
have taken the guided missile out of “lock on” in time and steered it into another
direction. A few days before NATO had shown to journalists how, with the same
weapon, it had been possible to stop an attack in the last minute to prevent a collateral
damage.
General Clarks description is grossly misleading:
The videos that were recorded automatically during the attack were running
at triple speed which Phillips (a NATO speaker, in the beginning of January
2000) tried to excuse as an unplanned technical problem during the transmission
from one system to another. The day after the attack the two videos had
been shown in Brussels, giving the impression that the train had appeared on
the bridge surprisingly fast so that the pilot would not have been able to stop
the attack. The American NATO commander in chief Clark moreover had
given the impression that the pilot himself was responsible for the steering of
the guided missiles and therefore had had his hands full. But actually a weapons
officer, who was in the plane, was responsible for the launching. These
facts, said Philips, could maybe not have been described correctly by Clark.
The accusation of manipulation though he rejected strongly. (Ho., Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, 8th January 2000).
On a heavily frequented railway section the Leskovac bridge was crossed frequently;
but as General Clark obviously admits the pilot did not look at the bridge
at all, because he was flying a remotely directed attack.
Secondly, general Clark admits that the pilot knew that he had hit the train with
his first attack. In spite of this, the pilot continued to effect a second attack. He
still tried to eliminate the bridge, although at that moment there was a train that
had been bombarded. Obviously the pilot tried, according to general Clark’s own
confession, to destroy the bridge, although he knew that it carried a train at that
moment. It is hard to imagine how this could have been achieved without the loss
of more lives.
Moreover, the second attack was no instant reaction, excusable with nervousness
or error; indeed: “to accomplish his mission, the pilot circled back around”.
Thirdly, general Clark explains that the pilot could not have seen at all what he
attacked. During the presentation of the video general Clark said: “You can see
smoke and other obscuration there – he couldn’t tell what this was exactly.” This
means that the pilot fired onto an object that he could not even identify due to
“smoke and clouds”.
These three factors indicate that the pilot has acted unlawfully. Firstly, with
the pilot not checking what approached the bridge at that time, he violated article
57(1) of the First Geneva Supplementary Protocol, which says that “at any time it
has to be respected that civilian population, civilians and civilian objects have to
be spared“, see also article 57(4). Secondly, with the pilot attacking a bridge for
the second time knowing that it carried a passenger train, he violated article 57
(2) (b), which states that “an attack [...] has to be ended finally or temporarily, if
it is proven that the target is not military, since it is under special protection [...]”,
according to the principle of proportionality.
Po njima tj. autorima knjige je to sigurno zlocin koji je prostekao iz jasnog krsenja prava odnosno Zenevske konvencije kao sto mozete videti u zadnjoj recenici.
Dopuna: 07 Jul 2013 20:41
Dve stvari se pojavljuju u ovom tekstu koje su kao informacije interesantne sa tehnickog aspekta analize koju je Padobranac75 uradio:
1.AGM 130
2.Dvoclana posada aviona tj. poseban "weapons system officer" indikuju upotrebu F-15E
Dopuna: 07 Jul 2013 20:53
Da dodam i sta Spanci kazu o ovom dogadjaju u jednom clanku o karakteritikama i upotrebi F-15 u ratovima, citiram deo clanka o ratu na Kosovu:
"El misil es guiado mediante sistema de navegación inercial (INS) y sistema de posicionamiento global (GPS), pero además el oficial de sistemas de armas puede dirigir el misil en vuelo mediante una cámara incorporada, o incluso abortar y desviarlo lejos de la población civil si el blanco se encuentra demasiado cerca de áreas civiles como las iglesias. A los tripulantes de la OTAN no se les permitía atacar blancos en torno a dichos edificios. No obstante, se produjo un grave incidente cuando un F-15E armado con misiles AGM-130 atacó un puente justo en el momento en el que cruzaba un tren de pasajeros, provocando la muerte de 14 civiles; el oficial de armas no podía reconocer visualmente el tren desde la distancia a la que disparó y cuando el tren apareció en la cámara no pudo reaccionar a tiempo."
Ako se pogleda ova slika koja predstavlja pogled iz AGM-130 vidi se da krstic i kvadrat koji uokviruje sto je identicno sa slikam koje je NATO predstavio, uzimajuci u vidu da su snimak kropovali tj odsekli okolne parametre da se nevide i prikriju vreme i ostale parametre koji se mogu videti i lako zakljuciti iz celog snimka mnogo informacija da je prikazan kako treba...
|