Does the "Fire only when fired at" law make sense? - Page 2




 
--
 
May 17th, 2004  
1217
 
There's a thin line between being aimed at and being shot at. If you say somone aiming at you means someone is going (to try) to shoot at you. I'd say that a reason to fire, or at the very least take aim at the guy.
Not firing while fired upon seems to me to be a fast way to get yourself killed.....
May 17th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Any other stories from peackeeping missions Redleg?
The ROE of UN Peacekeeping missions are quite strickt, and mostly for a good reason.

I have been in many situations in Lebanon where no shots where fired, but if the same thing had happened in Iraq I'm 100% sure that someone would have been killed..

One thing we/you must understand that pointing a weapon and firing it can be two VERY different things..
I've had several AK-47's pointed at me in Lebanon, but in many Arab countries/cultures this is the same as we showing the good old finger here in the West.
That's one of the reasons why we were not allowed to open fire unless fired upon... (REAL hard sometimes!)
Some good did also come from this, both the Israelis and Lebanese down there knew this, and when/if a Norwegian Peacekeeper pointed their weapon at them they knew we ment to fire, and almost all of the situations resolved when we did show signs to use our weapons..

I'll post more about this later, don't have time right now...
May 17th, 2004  
AFSteliga
 
 
The Rules of Engagement mainly apply to when your travelling through possible-hostile territory. If your in an combat zone, the rule is to shoot first and ask questions later. If your moving where there might be a) Friendlies, or b) Civilians, you don't want to open fire.

Here's a scenario:

Say a child is pointing a toy rifle at you from a distance of say...30 or 40 meters. Do you really know if that rifle is a toy or not from that distance? Do you really want to shoot at a child, when maybe that he/she was just playing around?

In my opinion, the RoE are good to have in place so unnecessary KIA's are cut down.
--
May 17th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCdt Steliga
The Rules of Engagement mainly apply to when your travelling through possible-hostile territory.
Rules of Engagement ALWAYS apply. There seems to be a pretty common misconception that there is a single set of these rules/regulations that is either applied or is not in any given situation. RoE change based on circumstances and mission.
May 17th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: well


Sorry about that Redleg....Well, I dont see the UN RoE as comparable with military one. The UN is meant to keep peace, not take ut terrorists. Oh, and as to the AK pointed=giving the finger, well thats partially true, but I would hate to take my chanses, so the IDF policy(as i know) is to blast away....Well, I guss Norwegians are just more cool headedn then us.
May 17th, 2004  
Marksman
 
 
I think tha RoE should be carefuly read,and be used when needed,IF a kid points a gun at you from a certain distance,even if that was a real gun what are the odds for a KID to shoot you from about 20 meters,anyway it is a good rule which was carefuly made and as such should be respected
May 17th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Rules of Engagement ALWAYS apply. There seems to be a pretty common misconception that there is a single set of these rules/regulations that is either applied or is not in any given situation. RoE change based on circumstances and mission.

Quote:
ROE are commanders' rules for the use of force. Operations personnel are principally responsible to ensure that the ROE further operational requirements.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...-100/chap8.htm
May 17th, 2004  
Marksman
 
 
Good link
May 17th, 2004  
Redleg
 
 

Topic: Re: well


Quote:
Originally Posted by sherman105
Oh, and as to the AK pointed=giving the finger, well thats partially true, but I would hate to take my chanses, so the IDF policy(as i know) is to blast away....Well, I guss Norwegians are just more cool headedn then us.
I think it's much more likely that they would shoot at the IDF than a Norwegian Peacekeeper..

But I guess that Norwegians are a bit more "cooleheaded" than many other nations as well when we work abroad. 8)
I can give many examples of situations we have encountered that I'm sure would have turned out a lot more nasty than they did if some other nations were involved.
I guess it comes from experiences learned from our 20 year long stay in Lebanon where we had no heavier weapons than the 84mm Carl Gustav (which we was not allowed to use much anyway), and no backup forces, so we had to rely on our "cool heads" and diplomatic skills, rather than brute Force and the entire American Air Force..
This is something we have brought with us to most AORs abroad, mostly with great success.

And to you first comment:
the UN ROE in Lebanon is a MILITARY one, but it's ment for Peacekeeping operations, which is quite different to Peaceenforcing ones..
UN ROEs are different from mission to mission, and it depends if it's PK or PE as well.

And as Redneck said, ROEs will ALWAYS be issued for a military operation, if it's not (in case of a homeland war/invasion etc.) every country has their standard ROEs for those kind of situations.
May 17th, 2004  
Jtf2
 
The ROE "don't open fire until fired upon " isin't that rule for small ops only?