A Russian surveillance plane soared through secure airspace over Washington on Wednesday, presumably collecting intelligence as it traveled near the Pentagon, the Capitol and other government buildings, two U.S. officials said. The Russian Air Force Tupolev Tu-154 aircraft made the flight through the Treaty on Open Skies, which Russia, the United States and 32 other nations have signed. The treaty established criteria under which countries can make unarmed observation flights over the soil of… (www.msn.com) さらに...
The Open Skies regulations covers the territory over which the parties exercise sovereignty, including mainland, islands, and internal and territorial waters. The treaty specifies that the entire territory of a member state is open to observation. Observation flights may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety and not for reasons of national security.
From what I understand US crews inspect the surveillance equipment on these planes beforehand and are on-board when they conduct their activities. The same goes when we do these flights over Russia.
The Tu-154 was grounded in Russia following a crash last year. This aircraft was probably a Tu-155. On the other hand, according to Wikipedia, the Tu-154 is still in service in North Korea! Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-154
The Pentagon and the White House are both "sights" and "sites". So either is correct usage. That being said... the Russians in question were information-gathering professionals who were on the job - not tourists. Based on this, I believe "sites" would've been the better choice.
They are not interchangeable. Sights are what you look through. Sites are landmarks or things you see. If you are going to correct someone be sure you are sure of your information.
I have to agree, the way it's used here it is interchangeable. The meaning could be as in "sight seeing" or as in a specific "site". It isn't the meaning of the word in question, but rather the meaning of the sentence.
I spent 20 years in the Air Force, the majority of that time was in the B52 as bombardier & navigator and the rest of the time working on the highly classified B-1 and Advanced Cruise Missile development programs. My point being that I've had intelligence and information security hammered into me until it's part of my DNA, even 22 years after retirement!
For that reason, this quote (from the article) by Pentagon spokesman, Navy Capt Jeff Davis is simply stunning to me..."We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don't necessarily have that great of intelligence on us. So, in the interest of transparency and miscalculation on their part, sometimes it's worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you're doing or what you're not doing."
So, now it appears that in the realm of our national security, we must now practice "intelligence equality" so as not to make our adversaries feel somehow inferior... that they don't measure up to our level and quality of intelligence gathering. Unbelievable!!
Yes that's right. Putin is running around the world like some high school punk who enjoys intimidating people. What's wrong with this guy, he is acting like world war three would be inevitable and a way to reach the top of the global s%×t pile. We must be extremely careful with one who would launch if Donald hurt Vladimir's feelings. He doesn't like to be treated the way he does with others. Putin appears to have no moral boundaries. He is a liar and treaty violator Incidentally, he is arming Russia to the teeth. Here's the bad part, every weapons system ever invented by mankind is eventually used 100% of the time.
A Tu-154! Really? They've been grounded since the Dec 2016 crash that wiped out most of the Red Army Choir. And what would that achieve anyway? More likely to have been a Tu-95 Bear or its Tu-142 equivalent if it was "collecting intelligence". In any event, this was just a "sabre rattling" stunt by the Russians because they could under the terms of the Open Skies Treaty. It goes on all the time with commercial aircraft. Of course they use their satellites for serious spying. The US does the same. It's just political jousting. (BTW, I'm in Australia and we tend not to engage in these sort of shenanigans).
I don't understand the concept. What are all those billion dollar satellites for. It's not like a building is going to get up and move. And to simply fly over and not into is a waste of fuel. I guess they were tourists on military planes.
This sounds like a non issue ment to scare the public more about russia. Would the us military just let a spy plane waltz right in and do nothing? No way. Fake news