IN DEPTH: What is a no-fly zone?

IN DEPTH: What is a no-fly zone?

www.cbc.ca

As the name suggests, a no-fly zone is a geographical area designated as forbidden to air traffic, and is instituted as a way of preventing rogue regimes from bombing their own people. In order to be effective, a no-fly zone must be patrolled by military aircraft that have the authority to shoot down unauthorized planes.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Alot of comments in all the "Libya threads" show not a lot of people really understand what a no-fly zone is and why there is planes still flying over Libya.

Here is a news article explain what a no-fly zone is.


It is unbelievable how many even mainstream blogers jumped on this "double stander" crap.

www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)

So why don't they call it, "Only people we say can fly there have permission zone" then? Got to dumb thing down for the masses, because they probably won't understand. Or maybe, "Everyone can fly here but you zone".

A NFZ is when the other side is forbid to do anything and you just bomb the sh*t out of everything.

reply to post by LikeDuhObviously

This is a no fly zone:



But seriously S+F,A few people on ATS definitely need to read this!

I think it's is a positive thing that someone took the time to explain this to less understanding people. A 'No-Fly' zone is a designated area in which only authorized aircraft are allowed entry to the air-space. (As previously stated by thread op) This doesn't mean that all aircraft are grounded. It means that you had better have authorization before attempting to fly through the designated area.

Why can't they use drones to implement the No-Fly zone? I mean bombing AAs and SAMs... Might as well invade the freakin' country man...

Originally posted by TKDRL
So why don't they call it, "Only people we say can fly there have permission zone" then? Got to dumb thing down for the masses, because they probably won't understand. Or maybe, "Everyone can fly here but you zone".

edit on Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:29:10 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

It is not "Everyone can fly here but you zone", Just think about a Air Canada flight trying to fly over Libya during this no-fly sanction.

Anyone who would be doing the flying fully understand what the sanction means. Anyone who wants to find out who is not welcomed to fly can ready the press releases. You do understand the countries involved are calling their strikes acts of war ?

I mostly posted this as a reply to the "BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS A NO FLY ZONE" posts here and all over the internet. Wake the ... up people it is war, Obviously the UN, US, Canada, French, Brits, Norway, etc. have a double standard about flying over Libya. Gadhafi has attacked his people with jets, Gadhafi could attack US ships (as a example) with jets ... YEAH there is a double standard. And if you know anyone on the ground in Libya or in the US, Canadian, Britsh, etc military or just have empathy for the people on the ground you should be glad they do.

reply to post by LikeDuhObviously


A no-fly zone is exactly that - No Fly. No military air assaults on citizens and rebels, no air support for ground ops, no importing mercenaries or supplies.

To establish a NFZ surface to air missiles and other threats to air assets must be eliminated. That means bombing and rocket attacks.

This UN resolution goes farther than that: it calls for whatever means necessary to protect the people in Libya from their own "government"; that includes airstrikes on tank, artillery and troop movements and columns.

Clearly there are SAS, French and US special forces on the ground. Not as an "Occupation force" but as facilitators to aid in targeting, lasing, and intel, and coordination with the local resistance. This is just the way things work in modern war; if you don't like it, pick up your marbles and go home. It is what it is.

Clearly the goal is regime change; that is undeniable.

The Libyans deserve not to live under a brutal madman for the first time in 41 years. They started it on their own after seeing Tunisia and Egypt, they have begged for the International Community to help as they bled thousands of gallons of blood in the streets all alone, with no help.

The Arab League pleaded for western assistance for the rebels, and that broke the log jamb.

It is about goddamned time we westerners came to aid those who were begging for help, instead of starting wars for our own interests.

I am proud for the French striking the first death knells of the brutal Gaddafy regime.

I am unclear about the rules of engagement surrounding this UN mandated so called "no fly zone?" It seems a hell of a lot more offensive than strictly policing the skies over Libya. I assumed that they would be circling airstrips, and taking out anti-aircraft defenses. However, it seems there is more to it than just that? When I heard about French aircraft taking out tanks, it seems this is more than a no-fly zone?

Military action launched against Libyan forces

The defence ministry in Paris later said French jets had "destroyed a number of tanks and armoured vehicles" belonging to Gaddafi's forces.

I didn't know tanks and armored vehicles could fly? Perhaps, they are on to a new technology? This is really a joke. No one came to the aid of the Rwandans or the Sudanese as they were experiencing genocide. Until recently, when the civil unrest and the uprising began, Kadafi seemed to have softened his tone toward the West.

Bombing campaign in Libya targets Kadafi's air, ground forces

Still, the military campaign put France and many of its allies in an awkward position. Through most of his four decades in power, Kadafi has been an international pariah accused of fomenting terrorism — including the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

But in 2003, Libya announced it was giving up a covert nuclear program. In 2006, the United States reestablished diplomatic relations. The next year, Libya gained a rotating seat on the Security Council, and Kadafi made a highly publicized visit to Paris. Western countries scrambled for a share of Libya's oil wealth.

I am skeptical about the reasoning and the origins of the civil unrest and the armed rebellion as well? For the most part, it seems he was complying with the wants and demands of the countries, and now they are currently engaging in widespread military hostilities in Libya? An another note, what if he was sleeper cells in the nations conducting hostile actions against him. Could they be inviting terrorist acts as a response? Like Lockerbie, the West Berlin disco bombings, and other terrorists acts with Libya's fingerprints on them. So, I am a bit skeptical about the true intentions for this no-fly zone? If I recall, wasn't there a no-fly zone over Iraq for years before the ground invasion in 2003? More to it than meets the eye.

Thanks so much for starting this thread.

Anyone who is unaware of the extent of what this "NoFlyZone" would entail just wasn't paying attention.

I recall a US military brass about a week ago, on several TV and print and online news sources explaining quite explicitly that a NFZ would look exactly like this.

In other words, if this surprises you, you werent paying much attention.

Anyone got a link from that military brass? I can't recall his name.

As early as March First Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. was being quoted in the MSM as saying a no-fly zone is “an extraordinarily complex operation to set up."




Feel free to google that quote to see how many news sources ran it three weeks ago.

So, yes, anyone who is surprised at the extent of this was not paying ANY attention.

And, from Yahoo in early March:

General James Mattis, who said that enforcing a no-fly zone would require first bombing radar and missile defenses in Libya.

"My military opinion is, sir, it would be challenging," Mattis said when asked about the difficulties of imposing a no-fly zone. "You would have to remove the air defense capability in order to establish the no-fly zone so it -- no illusions here, it would be a military operation. "It wouldn't simply be telling people not to fly airplanes," said Mattis.

-------~~~~~~~~~~-------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------

Also, as a fun side note: McCain has some funny-foot-in-mouth moments:

"I think they are making up reasons" not to act, he said.

"We spend $500 billion on defense and we can't take down Libyan air defenses?" Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told the Washington Post. "You tell those Libyan pilots that there is a no-fly zone, and they are not going to fly."

That gave me a good chuckle. THAT is why you are not president, Mr. Senile.

articles.latimes.com...

news.yahoo.com...

www.cavalierdaily.com...

Originally posted by TKDRL
So why don't they call it, "Only people we say can fly there have permission zone" then? Got to dumb thing down for the masses, because they probably won't understand. Or maybe, "Everyone can fly here but you zone".

edit on Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:29:10 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

The 'masses" do a good enough job dumbing themselves down.

no need to do any extra work there.