Cazalet33,

Once again, your ignorance is showing. The International Committee of the Red Cross studied the visibility of Red Cross and Red Crescent symbols way back in 1970 and conducted tests in the '90s. The appropriate materials were are identified to ensure their visibility to electro-optical sensors.

Not displaying the symbol on the grounds of EO detection is not a valid argument.

I think this particular "Troll" Cazalet33 has an office based in St Petersburg.

Caz, your comment about paint and IR betrays your ignorance.

IR is based on temperature differential and different paint pigments have different thermal properties.

Not much if the two paints come from the same source and if the background metal has cooled down after solar radiation during daylight. It's the metal which emits the IR, not the paint.

Wrong wavelength. But the ICRC research must clearly be wrong according to you.

CAZ, I could post links to IR paint but I doubt you would believe r bother to prejudice your prejudices.

I've seen enough very large painted signs and labels of the sides of ships on IR optoelectronic displays to recognise the limitations at night of reading painted signs on IR displays.

A more serious problem with the idea of painting warning on the roofs of every non-acceptable target in Asia and Africa which might become a target for you-know-who is that there are just so many inappropriate targets. Not just hospitals but a hundred or more categories of inappropriate targets.

Don't forget the Law of Unintended Consequences. If we demand that every potential target for inappropriate air attack paint such recognition symbols, then it is sure that sooner or later the US military will claim that they had a right to attack one because the symbol was not clear enough. You know what they're like.

I think that MSF did all that could reasonably be required of them to inform the potential aggressor that the provincial hospital in Kunduz was where is was.

It was the attack which was unreasonable, not the target.

"I think that MSF did all that could reasonably be required of them to inform the potential aggressor that the provincial hospital in Kunduz was where is was."

Interesting use of the singular tense there...

Hey Caz,
Why not paint the roofs of just appropriate targets? Or am I missing something?

@cazallet33

Your posts read as though they are cut and pasted straight from the propaganda book you get issued with. :)

I have my suspicions that our troll is ex-maritime.

Two clues, IR/EO, and 1c buoys.

Your troll, Sir, only kept coming back because people kept reacting to him and so that he could fulfil his quota of message plants. Left alone they tend to grind their axe a bit and then move on.

Standards are slipping.

Can't believe you lot responded to this idiot. The ignore button is there for a reason.

"I think that MSF did all that could reasonably be required of them to inform the potential aggressor that the provincial hospital in Kunduz was where is was."

Interesting use of the singular tense there."

wellll - there is only one force out there with an airforce no???

But I also sure the local insurgents are careful about who they strike and where, checking their Geneva Convention booklet as they go................

Afghanistan defense minister says Taliban was in MSF Doctors Without Borders hospital blown up by US - CBS News

It is interesting to listen to the Afghanistan defense minister. He argues that Taliban were using the hospital as "Safe Haven" for fighting forces ... and that the request for airstrike on the basis that it was being so used again was integral to the call for airborne fires.

This points to a tricky problem of a coalition operation and who is using what RoE. It's a bit of a minefield, as this instance shows.

Also tricky is the tidbit of info (not sure of its quality) that a Pakistani operative was involved in this whole mess and was in aid of the Taliban in Kunduz. Nothing quite as simple as it seems, but one thing I learned is that RoE has (in some cases) restrictions placed on the operators for political reasons ... which means that the political sorts are willing to accept more friendly casualties for the political aim of ... not looking bad. (Or worse, since bad is a given anymore ...)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-analy...ctors-deny-it/

Kinda important and meaningful discussion to had here. I have a vested interest because I have a close family member who has taken career path in a similar organisation and who has the cojones to go into sh1tholes to help the vulnerable in the most extreme circumstances.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, the military outfits involved need to learn and if they can do better, they must do better. Nothwithstanding that, I'm ex military so I get "fog of war" OK

And stop debating with just one poster. It's pointless. If you think he/she is a troll let it go FFS.

Then I suspect, fellow old timer, that you know how hard they (the military still at it) work at getting it right.

Remember: all the things you and I learned in our years in uniform, before we were put out to pasture, did not just flow into the young minds in a Vulcan mind meld. As turnover happens, some lessons are retained better than others. It's kind of like why aircraft still crash now and again.

As ex-military (contrary to lonewolf's assumptions) from the time the SPAMs were "friendly firing" on British soldiers, it really does seem as though you believe personal rhetoric should be implemented rather than amending procedures from previous errors.
The operator(s) of the weapon(s) probably hasn't learnt that the "I was only following orders" defence kind of got dismissed in a very well known set of court hearings many moons ago.


I also have a close friend in war zone aid work, and I'm sure his family would appreciate knowing he is hopefully safe from this kind of event.

You are wrong, my friend, the effort to get it right never ceases -- your flaw in logic is that there is somewhere a perfect and fool proof procedure. Haven't seen one yet, but I've seen some pretty good ones that when followed prevent a lot of bad things from happening.

Are you sure you actually served? If you believe that any human endeavor is going to be conducted under zero defects, then you will be disappointed every time you wake up.

First rule of combat; "the plan only lasts till first contact with the enemy."