Those missiles are super accurate, and we have lots of them. they have been used since the early 70s, in lots of different configurations. Use of the Tomahawks allowed the attack to be made with assets already in place, while putting no Americans at risk, and minimizing the chance of hitting the wrong target.
1 Like
Quite the conundrum:
Would you rather be cold for half the year? Or would you rather your whole family be dead?
Seasonal Affective Disorder is no joke (speaking from experience) but when the alternative is dying in a gas attack, or a bombing, or in a hail of bullets at a checkpoint, or in a prison camp, or starving because no food gets through… etc. Fuck.
9 Likes
Well, don’t doubt that someone in the military industrial complex made a good profit, so they sure think it was worth it.
2 Likes
3 Likes
Ick, all the way around. I’m still hoping against hope that the US political class will pull its collective head from the rather large and smelly ass and boot trump and his coterie of thugs and con artists.
Drinking good beer has helped maintain that mostly delusional thought.
Striking, though, while Americans were not harmed locally, we’ve been harmed globally. The calculus for raising arms against America/ns and their interests just received a newly shortened timeframe for decision making. Lack of diplomacy and an obviously carefree hand with weaponry by the country with the most powerful military on the planet kinda puts everyone else on edge and makes it that much easier for everyone to punch instead of talk.
Saw that on Twitter and damn near spat coffee. Maybe that was the song playing as Williams wrought 7.62mm havok from the UH-60 back in the day?
I will now guffaw at that thought.
I have just guffawed heartily.
3 Likes
So are all of our other guided missile platforms which cost a lot less. Some of them aren’t early 70’s tech and are even more accurate. The big difference is cost and General Dynamics.
But let’s say you are right and the Tomahawk was the best choice… the choice that most matters is to attack or not to attack. Trump chose to enter us in to another conflict in the Middle East and defending that choice is another kettle of fish
4 Likes
It would be easier it it were not for those “American interests” which are never spelled out explicitly.
3 Likes
Very important point, and why cluster bombs, landmines, napalm etc. are also banned.
It is because the only thing that Trump cares about is Trump. He doesn’t hold up his end of any contract. So, he gladly accepted all that help from Putin, but the investigations are getting way too close, so screw Putin. And say it in a way that 100% gets the point across.
Literally telling the russians ‘You’re Fired’
They look awfully unhappy about the climate, non? We sponsored a family of six here on our little la-la land island. Inside of a year the kids are fluent in English (truth be told it took about two months for them), the parents have enough English to get by - in fact, Dad has enough to pass his driver test, woot! Funny, they haven’t mentioned the really shitty winter we’ve had…
9 Likes
One reason I saw was that Assad would have everything to lose by using the weapons. I’d suggest that (1) it isn’t the first time “someone” has used them in this conflict, and (2) until now, anyway, there hasn’t been much (if any) precedent for punishing those who do use chemical weapons (e.g. Italy vs. Ethiopia, Iraq vs. Iran).
1 Like
The reasoning WaPo gives is that Tomahawks avoid human pilots: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/04/06/why-the-navys-tomahawk-missiles-are-the-most-likely-option-for-a-strike-in-syria-against-assad/
What other guided missile platforms are there that would work? Nothing stands out in this list that’s equally effective and conventional.
1 Like
The demonizing of Russia and Iran can and does go over the top, and it’s aggravating to watch, but inevitable. When a country engages in belligerence and interference in the national affairs of others around the globe and engages in global military adventures that leave a high body count and stolen territory, that tends to provoke a lot of unmeasured criticism, whether it’s the US, Russia, or anyone else.
[quote=“Medievalist, post:97, topic:98477”]Will we really have to have another global war - paid for by the lives of the poor and the income of the middle class and profiting only the ultrawealthy political aristocracy - before we stop clamoring for foreign military intervention?
[/quote]
We might wind up in a global war, but if that happens it won’t be because of random people demonizing Russia, but because of two things:
• the shocking incompetence of a narcissistic, thin-skinned idiot of a president who prefers to gets his information from Fox, InfoWars, and Breitbart rather than the experts whose job is to keep him informed.
• the ultrawealthy political aristocracy wanting it
You could pass out leaflets, make tons of websites, and post millions of comments either praising or condemning Russia in vivid, emotional terms and it amounts to a hill of beans. So while I’d prefer measured and informed criticisms of Russia (and everyone else), if we do get dragged into a global war, it’s not going to be from someone in no position of power accusing Russia of doing some bad thing or another.
12 Likes
Also worth pointing out that Minnesota is already home to a large number of Somalis and Ethiopians.
6 Likes
I’ll just repeat
4 Likes
[heywellisntthatodd.gif]
9 Likes
But isn’t The Conspiracy supposed to use ‘crisis actors’ for false flag operations? Or is that only for domestic incidents?
I am sure that the US troops already deployed in Syria will be shocked to hear that the US is now involved in a conflict there. But seriously, I was not really expecting him to do something smart. But this is. he did not go after Assad himself, or even large numbers of troops. Assad crossed a line that he had crossed before, and probably expected the reaction from the US to be another sternly worded warning. instead he got spanked. Now he has to at least suspect that if he uses chemical weapons again, he will get another spanking. maybe he will learn to play nice.
We cannot and should not replace every dictator and tyrant. We certainly should not just eliminate them, and let even worse people fill the power vacuum. I was against it when I was in Iraq, I was against it in Libya, and I am still against it. But there are some things that pretty much demand a reaction. Sarin gas attacks on civilian populations is one of those things. I know a little about chemical and biological warfare. I used to instruct people on the safe handling and defense against those weapons. Use of them is and should be a crime.
I also get that on this forum especially, Anything Trump does is going to be criticized. I totally accept that reality. Honestly, I would not rush to give him too much credit for his military successes, should there be some. It is at least possible that he will learn to ask for and take the guidance of people who really do have the intelligence to come up with innovative and successful solutions to these problems.
2 Likes
Given that a substantial volley of cruise missiles is unlikely to pass through an air defense network without being noticed, and Russia didn’t attempt to down any of them, there had to be some level of agreement (especially since, unless these units were antiques, Tomahawks can be provided with new targets even in flight, so you’d probably want some solid assurance that they won’t be abruptly swerving toward you); but I don’t know if doing a shoddy job of damaging the airbase was part of the deal or not. I assume that the US 'best case’s would involve catching the SU-22s on the ground, since those are more expensive and slower to replace than mere pavement; but those are also the easiest things to evacuate on short notice). Making a real mess of an airstrip is, apparently, a somewhat specialized task(shallow craters aren’t too hard to smooth over, so various ground penetrating munitions seem to be preferred) so it is possible that the missiles they had didn’t have the warheads suited to the job(anyone know if they would be compatible; or does the fact that cruise missiles don’t drop bombs preclude the usual ground penetrating options?)
Regardless of the exact level of agreement, it sure sounds like the actual damage done was unimpressive and unlikely to impede Syrian air operations much. Given the ‘decisive action leader’ pose value; if we had some sweet shots of aircraft burning on the runway we’d be playing them, rather than near-stock footage of Tomahawk launches.
9 Likes
