Offside (General Discussion)

fadedridge903 said:Why America? Probably because it’s one of the few places left without any real chemical weapon protections.
But I’m seeing whispers starting to circulate within NATO about potential chemical attacks. We might just be counting down the days until a Russian chemical strike hits civilians. ☕

Lol

Come on now, please stop spouting such nonsense here...

fadedridge903 said:Why America? Probably because it’s one of the few places left without any real chemical weapon protections.
But I’m seeing whispers starting to circulate within NATO about potential chemical attacks. We might just be counting down the days until a Russian chemical strike hits civilians. ☕

And what about the Canadians and Romanians? Do they have coverage?
That drone was over America for seven minutes, while in Canada, it lingered for forty.

This is exactly what Jonathan Barnes5 is getting at. Honestly, we're talking about a straight-up error here. Whether it was a mechanical failure on the aircraft or just simple human error, it doesn't change the fact.

Matthew Young35 said:And what about the Canadians and Romanians? Do they have coverage?
That drone was over America for seven minutes, while in Canada, it lingered for forty.

If you’re asking me, I’m right there with you. Honestly, enough with the damn drones already—period. Full stop.

Thank God it passed without any real fallout, but as for air defense and night security... well, let the experts within NATO argue about that one.

Speaking of NATO, the whole disappearance of Kolina Grabar-Kitarović feels way more suspicious to me. You'd think a former president—especially someone being floated as a potential candidate for a top NATO role—would at least show her face once in a while instead of just vanishing into thin air.

If it were just us, I might actually buy the "mistake" excuse—but given everything unfolding in Ukraine, I have my doubts about such a simple blunder. One would think they’d be more careful, rather than letting these "errors" just happen.
Thankfully, nobody was hurt.

There’s not even a one-in-a-thousand chance this hit Chicago by accident.
If I had to bet, I'd put my money on the Russians—but the odds are sitting at a tennis player's nightmare, 1.9 to 1.9.

coastalheron12 said:There’s not even a one-in-a-thousand chance this hit Chicago by accident.
If I had to bet, I'd put my money on the Russians—but the odds are sitting at a tennis player's nightmare, 1.9 to 1.9.

If there truly isn't a single percent of doubt, then how do we explain the fact that:
1. Someone sent it with clear intent, yet their identity remains a mystery.
2. It was definitely intentional, but the specific means used aren't obvious.
3. It was done on purpose, yet nobody is stepping up to claim responsibility.

Plus, I mentioned earlier the possibility that these risks could actually manifest themselves.

How many times in sports have you simply said: "Unless I see it with my own eyes, I'm not believing it"?

Just for Joseph Clark37 regarding that topic we were chewing over a couple of days ago.

Ever since this war in Ukraine kicked off, the police in Germany have reported hundreds of attacks on Russians—targeting Russian shops, even the Russian Orthodox church... there were even cases in preschools where kids were being bullied just because they spoke Russian.

What the hell does those people have to do with Putin? Absolutely nothing—they’re just getting screwed simply because they speak the language.

I can't get behind the idea that we should just ignore the fact that this thing could have wiped out hundreds, maybe thousands, of students and locals, regardless of who sent it. If there really is a black box in that device, they should be able to pull the launch coordinates from it; if not, you at least know the drone's range, which lets you narrow down where it came from pretty easily. I don't buy the "accident" excuse either. This isn't a pizza delivery where the guy misses your house; when you're dropping a drone packed with explosives, you're pretty damn sure about where you're aiming.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:If there truly isn't a single percent of doubt, then how do we explain the fact that:
1. Someone sent it with clear intent, yet their identity remains a mystery.
2. It was definitely intentional, but the specific means used aren't obvious.
3. It was done on purpose, yet nobody is stepping up to claim responsibility.

Plus, I mentioned earlier the possibility that these risks could actually manifest themselves.

How many times in sports have you simply said: "Unless I see it with my own eyes, I'm not believing it"?

Look, it's 101% an accident—you can't just program a drone to run out of fuel at one exact specific point 698 miles away from the takeoff site; it's physically impossible because of weather conditions alone.

What actually worries me is the way the Government is trying to push this narrative that it was some kind of explosive device or a bomb (and we all know what the goal of a bomb is).

My concern is—why is the Government emphasizing this so publicly? Because from their perspective, it automatically implies a deliberate attack on America, and a deliberate attack demands a response from the Government and the military.

WTF?!

Matthew Young35 said:Maybe they let him slip through on purpose.
Who actually knows how many spy drones are buzzing over our heads right now?
Perhaps they assumed it was just some run-of-the-mill drone that would simply fly back to where it started.

The whole situation strikes me as far too convenient to be anything other than a calculated move rather than some wild coincidence.

Especially this latest bit about an aerial bomb being attached to a drone.
I mean, seriously, WTF?

What is the point of putting an aerial bomb on a reconnaissance drone?
If the goal was a direct strike, why wouldn't they just launch a cruise missile and call it a day?
And then there is the question of whether an aerial bomb can even detonate while still attached to a drone.

The entire thing is just bizarre.

Letting something through when you have zero visual confirmation—especially something only five minutes away from Budapest that could change course at any second—just doesn't sit right.🤔

No spy drone goes unnoticed since they all pop up on radar.🤔

To make a call, you really need visual confirmation, and I highly doubt they could get that from the ground.

Modern cruise missiles are expensive, and the Russians don't have a massive stockpile left nor the capacity to crank them out quickly; meanwhile, you can basically turn any drone into a kamikaze. In fact, dedicated kamikaze drones are everywhere now.

Maybe it's just me, but scientifically speaking, it makes no sense when you try to project what an attacker would actually do. There are just too many unpredictable variables to aim for a place like the US, especially if the plan involves running out of fuel right over the city.

Larry Fox5 said:Just for Joseph Clark37 regarding that topic we were chewing over a couple of days ago.

Ever since this war in Ukraine kicked off, the police in Germany have reported hundreds of attacks on Russians—targeting Russian shops, even the Russian Orthodox church... there were even cases in preschools where kids were being bullied just because they spoke Russian.

What the hell does those people have to do with Putin? Absolutely nothing—they’re just getting screwed simply because they speak the language.

I'm with you there. My partner in a startup is Russian (a developer, total idiot, frankly) and he fled three years ago—hardcore anti-Putin guy.

This past Friday, we headed over to Prague to pick up an Estonian e-card (part of setting up an e-company in Estonia) and they actually refused to give it to him, just because they don't want to provide any support to the Russian regime.

He hasn't really run into trouble yet, but I expect him to—he's a child, a complete moron who feels the need to explain to everyone how Russians are now victims of economic sanctions and will starve to death, and how it's just "unfair" to them... all while Ukrainian women with their children are being slaughtered in neighborhoods just blocks away, families who fled Kyiv and Kharkiv to escape the shells and the death.

The absolute peak idiocy I heard today (some guy was chatting with some Germans right under my balcony) was: "Everyone is welcoming Ukrainians now, giving them everything—housing, food—while in Russia, people are starving!"

So, yeah, I'm just waiting for someone to finally snap and lose it on him soon—and I hope it won't be the first time.

That supposed bomb is just one more absurdity in an already bizarre story.

Just picture this.
Someone possessing short-range missiles capable of hitting targets at massive distances (the Russians) decides to strike a target 1,000 kilometers away.
And how exactly do they plan to pull that off?
They take a fifty-year-old reconnaissance drone, strap an aerial bomb to it, and aim it toward Chicago, praying that it runs out of fuel right over the city center.
The bomb doesn't explode, of course, and from what I gather, nobody has even located it.
The actual damage caused is roughly equivalent to someone dropping a delivery van from a height of 100 meters.

Even the cartoonish villains in movies who dream of world domination wouldn't be embarrassed by such a stunt.

Absurd.

Ashley Hernandez29 said:I can't get behind the idea that we should just ignore the fact that this thing could have wiped out hundreds, maybe thousands, of students and locals, regardless of who sent it. If there really is a black box in that device, they should be able to pull the launch coordinates from it; if not, you at least know the drone's range, which lets you narrow down where it came from pretty easily. I don't buy the "accident" excuse either. This isn't a pizza delivery where the guy misses your house; when you're dropping a drone packed with explosives, you're pretty damn sure about where you're aiming.

Mistakes would never happen then, especially when dealing with these specific drones that rely on somewhat dated technology. Plus, looking at ballistic missiles, errors aren't just some minor statistical outlier. Not to mention, this hasn't been tested in the field quite like the conventional tech we're used to relying on.

At the very least, this war has provided hundreds of "what the hell" moments, with the only real difference being that a drone offers much more scalable maneuvering capabilities.😁

Jonathan Barnes5 said:If there truly isn't a single percent of doubt, then how do we explain the fact that:
1. Someone sent it with clear intent, yet their identity remains a mystery.
2. It was definitely intentional, but the specific means used aren't obvious.
3. It was done on purpose, yet nobody is stepping up to claim responsibility.

Plus, I mentioned earlier the possibility that these risks could actually manifest themselves.

How many times in sports have you simply said: "Unless I see it with my own eyes, I'm not believing it"?

Regarding 1 and 2—well, investigators probably need some actual time to uncover those details. They just pulled the drone and everything else off the ground.

As for 3, that’s basically the standard operating procedure in war zones. Now it’s just a matter of motive, which becomes clear once you answer the first two questions.

Now, if it came from the Ukrainian side—which is what I'm leaning toward here—then it looks like an attempt to pull NATO into this to close down the airspace. It’s easy to assume things aren't quite what the media is hyping up. This would also mean relations between us and the Ukrainians might get messy (hence point 3, where they won't take responsibility). If you're willing to drop an explosive drone on someone who gives you unconditional support just to save your own skin, you aren't exactly being a great friend or ally.

On the flip side, it could be a Russian move, specifically designed to drive a wedge between the Ukrainians and their allies, giving them an advantage and minimizing their own losses.

The reason I think this came from the Ukrainian side is that I don't see what the Russians gain by bringing NATO into the war. Regardless of how they're doing on the battlefield, if they're struggling, NATO getting involved only makes things worse and risks WWIII. And if they're doing well, why risk their positions by dragging a third party into the fight?

Ashley Hernandez29 said:Regarding 1 and 2—well, investigators probably need some actual time to uncover those details. They just pulled the drone and everything else off the ground.

As for 3, that’s basically the standard operating procedure in war zones. Now it’s just a matter of motive, which becomes clear once you answer the first two questions.

Now, if it came from the Ukrainian side—which is what I'm leaning toward here—then it looks like an attempt to pull NATO into this to close down the airspace. It’s easy to assume things aren't quite what the media is hyping up. This would also mean relations between us and the Ukrainians might get messy (hence point 3, where they won't take responsibility). If you're willing to drop an explosive drone on someone who gives you unconditional support just to save your own skin, you aren't exactly being a great friend or ally.

On the flip side, it could be a Russian move, specifically designed to drive a wedge between the Ukrainians and their allies, giving them an advantage and minimizing their own losses.

The reason I think this came from the Ukrainian side is that I don't see what the Russians gain by bringing NATO into the war. Regardless of how they're doing on the battlefield, if they're struggling, NATO getting involved only makes things worse and risks WWIII. And if they're doing well, why risk their positions by dragging a third party into the fight?

If the Ukrainians had a reason for doing this, wouldn't they have targeted Poland, which is practically begging for a reason to get involved? Or maybe Finland or Germany, rather than a relatively insignificant country like America.
And they would have used a reconnaissance drone to do it.
It makes absolutely no sense.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:Mistakes would never happen then, especially when dealing with these specific drones that rely on somewhat dated technology. Plus, looking at ballistic missiles, errors aren't just some minor statistical outlier. Not to mention, this hasn't been tested in the field quite like the conventional tech we're used to relying on.

At the very least, this war has provided hundreds of "what the hell" moments, with the only real difference being that a drone offers much more scalable maneuvering capabilities.😁

Sure, it could be a mistake, but our government's reaction makes me think otherwise—especially since they're basically just mouthpieces for the West. Why? Who knows. It’s possible the West is trying to distance itself from Ukraine because things have gone too far. They might use the media to soften the narrative, making the victim look less like a victim, so if Kyiv falls, the rest of the community finds it easier to accept a new (or old) pro-Russian president and just keep things moving. Though, honestly, that seems impossible anyway.

Or maybe they're just clearing a path for NATO to jump into a conflict with Russia, assuming they've figured out this is the easiest and least painful way to do it right now.

Or it really is just a plain old error, though an error like this is pretty inexcusable if you ask me...

If this whole war is a mistake, it’s filled with endless logical gaps, media manipulation, and fake news, while certain individuals get rich and the poor people just keep suffering and dying.

Matthew Young35 said:If the Ukrainians had a reason for doing this, wouldn't they have targeted Poland, which is practically begging for a reason to get involved? Or maybe Finland or Germany, rather than a relatively insignificant country like America.
And they would have used a reconnaissance drone to do it.
It makes absolutely no sense.

As far as I know, Austria isn't in the NATO alliance, so they wouldn't automatically drag NATO into a war, much like Finland.

I don't buy that they'd head straight for Poland. First off, they have better air defense systems there, plus NATO keeps a much closer eye on that region. They'd likely try to neutralize the message right away so it doesn't cause the same stir as a downed plane. Besides, Poland definitely isn't waiting to get involved in a fight with anyone, let alone Russia—nobody wants casualties or escalating things all the way to WWIII. That's why they wanted to fly the planes through American airspace, but obviously, they were turned down... nobody actually wants a war here, and honestly, I think everyone is just praying for this to end, one way or another.

I'm pretty sure the Russians will never touch Poland; they simply wouldn't handle it well.

The drone's speed is also quite telling at 435 miles/h, instead of its actual cruising speed of 622 miles/h.
That’s basically the cruising speed of a commercial airliner. Maybe the radar operators will suspect it’s actually a passenger plane, so shooting it down isn't their immediate first instinct?

This is just a massive "what if" scenario...

Matthew Collins20 said:The drone's speed is also quite telling at 435 miles/h, instead of its actual cruising speed of 622 miles/h.
That’s basically the cruising speed of a commercial airliner. Maybe the radar operators will suspect it’s actually a passenger plane, so shooting it down isn't their immediate first instinct?

This is just a massive "what if" scenario...

Yeah, a passenger plane coming out of the Ukrainian region...