1. I agree I should have made it clear that MacNeil thought it had locked onto another source, so you will see I’ve changed this in the post.

2. As for the missile, having read the article again, I think there are alternative readings of what MacNeil meant. I hope you’ll forgive me for reading it the way I did.

I thought the ‘missile’ he refers to in the first sentence of the relevant paragraph is that which he refers to in the second sentence. Hence my assumption that he was concerned it might have locked onto a helicopter.

I have subsequently checked out the Javelin by emailing Lockheed Martin, who in conjunction with Raytheon make the system.

They sent me the following reply:

“Though designed originally as a shoulder-fired, medium-range precision-strike anti-tank weapon, Javelin has proven to be highly versatile: it defeats a broad target set, particularly in urban combat. Its versatility makes it effective against tanks, bunkers, buildings, small boats, and slow-moving helicopters”.

Now, I’m not a military man and have no idea whether in practice it has ever been used successfully or otherwise against helicopters but I hope you’ll understand why I read MacNeil’s article in the way I did.

I also spoke to Richard Norton-Taylor, Security Editor at the Guardian, and he says he interpreted it as MacNeil being concerned over the missile hitting friendly troops on the ground. Different again from both my, and your, interpretation.

So all in all, I think it’s fairly unclear what MacNeil meant!

3. As you point out, I’m sure the hypothetical incident I outlined would be reported by the press, I just don’t think MacNeil, arguably for very good reasons (enquiry procedures etc) would be able to write about it.

First of all, the Javelin missile in MacNeil’s post never locked onto another target. They THOUGHT it may have, but that was proven incorrect when the target was shown to be destroyed. The target could have been as far as 2500m away (we don’t knwo). At that distance and in a cluttered environment, it’s almost impossible to see if the target was correctly engaged with the naked eye. Upon further (and assumabley closer) investigation, the target was destroyed by the missile.

Second, the missile would have never engaged a helicopter because it doesn’t have the capability to do so. MacNeil was “pissed” because he was afraid that if the anti-aircraft gunner wasn’t destroyed, it could have taken out a helicopter.

Lastly, you may remember a Javelin-related incident that occurred during 2007 where British troops inadvertently killed civilians with the weapon. That incident was openly reported by several press outlets (UK & US).

John