An idea is beginning to gain traction among many military experts. The episode takes place in the first attack of the US campaign against Venezuelan vessels that Washington linked to drug trafficking, a coup that occurred on September 2, 2025 in the Caribbean that left 11 dead.
Everything indicates that it was with something very similar to a “civilian” plane.
A non-military aircraft. Yes, the singular thing, according to the information of New York Times and the Washington Postis that for that first action an aircraft with a paint scheme and silhouette not identifiable as “typically military” would have been used, to the point of seeming a civil or passenger aircraft.
Not only that. It is suggested that he also carried the ammunition inside the fuselage instead of displaying them on external supports. Also because the device emitted a military identifier via transponder, although it is not clear what real capacity a vessel of that type would have to perceive or interpret it during contact.
The double impact. The initial attack was marked by the decision of hit twice: after the first impact there were survivors who managed to remain on the remains of the hull and who later died in a second attack which ended up sinking the remaining structure. The boat reportedly changed course after detecting the plane and, at some point later, the survivors appeared to gesture toward the aircraft, without it being clear whether they understood what had caused the initial explosion.
This moment is what fueled much of the public debate because it enters into especially sensitive issues of the law of armed conflicts, in particular the treatment of people in vulnerable situations after a sinking.
Perfidy. The legal point currently being discussed is whether the use of a civilian-looking aircraft to carry out an offensive attack could fit into the figure of perfidyunderstood as feign protected status (like the civilian) to obtain a tactical advantage, causing the adversary to lower his guard or stop taking precautions.
Various specialists cited in the media they explain that the analysis would depend on factors such as the degree to which the aircraft was truly “unidentifiable” as a combatant, whether it came close enough to be seen by those on the boat, and whether that appearance could have influenced its behavior (for example, not evading, not surrendering, or not taking survival measures). It is also highlighted that the obligation to distinguish military forces from the civilian population It is a reiterated principle in manuals and doctrinal guides of the United States.
The official position. The administration defended the legality of the attacks, presenting them as part of a confrontation against drug trafficking and associated violent activities, and maintained that the actions were consistent with the applicable law.
In parallel, the Government argument that there is an armed conflict against certain criminal groups and cartels, a statement that has been discussed by different experts, but which serves as a framework to present the targets as “combatants” within that category. From the Pentagon, public responses focused on pointing out that the systems and platforms used undergo legal reviews and internal validation processes, and the exact model of the aircraft used in the initial strike was avoided.
The mystery of the plane. It has not been identified with certainty which aircraft it was, although hypotheses and indirect clues: from models derived from commercial aircraft as variants of the Boeing 737 in military service, to devices with clear liveries and minimal markings, occasionally seen in operational environments.
It has also been confirmed that the Navy operates P-8A Poseidon (based on 737 and with very clear schemes) and that there are other 737 military transport aircraft, as well as more discreet aircraft with civil registration plates linked to corporate structures little transparent. At the same time, is remembered that open flight trackers do not necessarily show all military activity, so the absence of conclusive public identification does not allow specific platforms to be confirmed or ruled out.
The technical factor. They counted the analysts at TWZ that the technical plausibility of an airplane “that looks like a passenger” but at the same time can attack is based on already existing solutions to integrate ammunition in a discreet way, especially through the so-called Common Launch Tube (CLT), a system that allows loads to be housed and launched from inside an aircraft without the need for visible supports.
The known capabilities The CLT can accommodate munitions and small drones (including light glide bombs, compact missiles and unmanned vehicles) and mounts that can be integrated into ramps, doors or internal compartments, with reloading options and tactical flexibility.
The approach has been associated with platforms such as AC-130Jweapons kits on KC-130J and drones such as the MQ-9, suggesting that, by design, it would a priori be adaptable to a wide variety of aircraft, including those that due to their external appearance can be confused with civil or transport devices.
Image | x
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings