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

Status
Not open for further replies.
goaliedude66630

goaliedude66630

Active member
i dont know but to me if you see some one in a sostile country walking around with a AK-47 and i cant shoot at him until i get shot at that desnt put me in a very good position i say let the soldiers do their job and let them fight a war how it should be fought
 
These "sostile" ( ;) ) countries are very different from our own, not everyone carrying a weapon is an enemy.
 
I don't know the exact details of the Rules of Engagment (do a Google search, you'll get a million results) but I do know that there are certain ramifacations to that. If you are in a hostile area and its a war zone you don't have to wait to be fired on. Hold on I'm going to go look this up...
...
...
...
...
Ok found them:

Scenario: A PFC is walking down the road to a porta potty and is confronted with a 10 year old boy in enemy territory pointing a gun at him.

1. The soldier will request permission to fire from his platoon sergeant.

2. The platoon sergeant will ask the plt leader.

3. The plt leader will ask the company commander. The CO will call the battalion commander and ask for permission to fire.

4. The Bn Cdr will call the Bde Cdr to get permission to fire.

5. The Bde Cdr will call division and speak to a person in the G3 shop.

6. The G3 personnel will immediately start working on a slide presentation in powerpoint to present to the CG on his options.

7. The slides will first be briefed to the Chief of Staff and will be sent back for revisions.

8. After 90 different versions have been completed, the Chief of Staff will finally approve the slides.

9. The CG will be presented slide presentation and will call Corps to ask the corps commander for permission to fire.

10. The G3 staff will fax a copy of the presentation to the corps G3 who will in turn ask for a copy to be sent by courier because the first copy got sent to the wrong fax number.

11. The poor captain who sent the fax to corps will be given a bad OER because he should have known that the fax number given to him by a colonel at corps was the wrong number.

12. Corps G3 finally receives the slide presentation and has his staff work on a corps presentation to give to the corps commander.

13. The corps commander is briefed, accepts his staffs proposal that the soldier should fire back, but has to call the Army commander to get permission.

14. The Army commander asks the corps commander to fax him all the information he has on the incident and he will get back to him.

15. The Army commander never receives the information.

16. Division is notified that the information did not reach Army so that poor captain with the bad OER is ordered to fax a copy of the slides to Army, the Pentagon, and the White House.

17. The Army commander finally receives the slides and says he will have to call the Army group commander for permission to fire.

18. The Army Group commander listens to the Army commander then tells him that he will have to call the Pentagon to get permission to fire.

19. The Army Group Commander calls the Pentagon and speaks with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The Chairman wants to know why some know-nothing captain from a division in theater is faxing a 200 page slide presentation to him and the president.

20. The Army Group commander tells the Chairman he will find out.

21. The Army Group commander calls the Army commander and asks why Captain Know-Nothing is faxing slides to the Pentagon and the White House. 22. The Army commander calls the corps commander and asks the same question.

23. The corps commander gets personally involved and calls directly to the division's G3 shop and asks to speak to CPT Know-Nothing.

24. CPT Know-Nothing is given another bad OER and is reassigned to sewage control in a prisoner of war camp.

25. The Army group commander informs the Chairman that the problem is taken care of.

26. The Chairman tells the Army Group commander that he will get back to him after he holds a meeting with all of the service chiefs.

27. During the meeting, the Air Force and Navy Chiefs decide they want a part in this decision now code-named "Operation Return Fire"

28. The Chairman agrees to allow the Air Force to send two tactical fighter wings and 10 B-52s from Diego Garcia. The Chairman allows the Navy to send in 5 carrier battle groups and 3 Marine divisions. On top of all of this, the Chairman tells the service chiefs that the Army will send in two more corps, five brigades of Artillery and an armored cavalry regiment. Furthermore he will ask the Secretary of defense if 500,000 Reservist and National Guardsmen can be called up.

29. The Chairman takes all of these proposals to the Secretary of Defense who agrees and tells the Chairman to prepare a briefing for the President. 30. A colonel stays up for a week straight preparing briefing slides and charts for the President's briefing.

31. The day of the briefing, the light bulb burns out in the White House's projector and the colonel who worked his butt off to set up this briefing loses the command he was going to take over this summer and is forced to retire because he should have known that the light bulb would burn out.

32. Eventually a lieutenant colonel locates a light bulb and he is promoted to colonel and is offered a command this summer that suddenly becomes open.

33. The president approves Operation Return Fire, but first he wants to get "eyes on the target"

34. Navy Seal Team 6 is dispatched to the area. Upon reaching the location where the soldier reported the contact, they find the decomposed body of a dead American PFC, still clutching a hand mike to his ear, looking as if he is waiting for a response to whatever question he asked.


Haha sorry.
 
ROFLMAO, that was great. Unfortunately true, but great.

What happened to "it's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission"?
 
absolutly not, many a good fellow during Viatnam, got killed because of the idea that you shouldnt fire before being fired apon.
 
I agree...that rule is silly.

The momment i see a person pointing a weapon at me, as far as i am concerned, that person is a combatant.

A dead combatant. :shock:
 
yes

Well, yes pointing at you is a reason to fire. But some places have many people armed in the streets, not all terrorists. Many people in Israel carry their handguns everywere, and all soldiers on leave have their Rifles with them most of the time....Not terrorists....
 
FutureRANGER said:
(...) Hold on I'm going to go look this up...
...
...
...
...
Ok found them:(....)
Click to expand...
Considering the amount of text you found, you did that pretty quick. :)

Just wondering; if the guy would have shot the kid, would his buddies back him up if he claimed that the kid took a shot at him first, even when he didn't? That would solve the problem, more or less.... :twisted:
 
well

I dont care how young the bastard is. Once he points a gun at you, he is a combatent, and should be shot, stabbed, run over blown apart or what ever is nessesary to defend your self.
 
I remember a thing written by a general about swedish peacekeeping soldiers on mission in kosovo, at the beggining of the tour they ware not allowed to fire, not even if they ware shot apon, only if they ware in imidiate danger. Which was very strikt, you had to be pretty much dead to be able to fire your gun. Several month past, they ware still not allowed to counteract enemy fire, only thing they could do was to take their APC and run (I dont know what their mission was as they ware not allowed to do anything, but rules are rules) Many soldiers ware ducking bullets daily, untill the order came, engage enemy fire, they didnt hasitate one minute. Those UN rules (in this case) can be a bit too much. But the rule of firstly beeing shot at before counteract with fire in peacekeeping missions is understandeble as you basicly is there to just keep hostile parties apart. Instead of engaging one part as in a war.

Any other stories from peackeeping missions Redleg?
 
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.....
 
AlexKall said:
Any other stories from peackeeping missions Redleg?
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
NCdt Steliga said:
The Rules of Engagement mainly apply to when your travelling through possible-hostile territory.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...


ROE are commanders' rules for the use of force. Operations personnel are principally responsible to ensure that the ROE further operational requirements.
Click to expand...

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-100/chap8.htm
 
Re: well

sherman105 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.. :lol:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top