The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

They did not "open that door", they opened the door next to it, sure.

and the GOP said "why stop now"

People like Annoyed will be screwed -- but that's okay... He thinks it's alright.

because "God bless America" etc.

[garhkal]

I don't think trump could afford to loose anyone on this operation, not after the last incident. This was pretty much a clean op.

What last incident? And Trump's not been in the hot seat for any other op. Or are you on about that dead seal iirc back in jan, which was still under obama's watch..

Smart bombs cost $40 000 apiece. An hour of warplane flight = $10 000. 1/10th of the cost... assuming no warplanes get shot down, that is. Losing a single warplane turns that upside down.

I think the Tomahawks were chosen because of the Russian air defenses being present.

So send in a few planes ahead with arram missiles to take out the air defenses.

Tomahawks are no good for runway destruction, you need a HEAP (High Explosive Armour Piercing) weapon for that, a 1000lb payload just isn't enough to do the job. You need to crater in -then- detonate to cause the tarmac to blow upwards.

Or just carpet bomb it with 100lbers!

[Annoyed]

Or just carpet bomb it with 100lbers!

We weren't trying to remove the place from existence. We just wanted to tap al-Assad on the shoulder and remind him to behave himself.

[Gatefan1976]

What last incident? And Trump's not been in the hot seat for any other op. Or are you on about that dead seal iirc back in jan, which was still under obama's watch..

No, it was not.

So send in a few planes ahead with arram missiles to take out the air defenses.

What do you do if Russia sent interceptors?, forgetting of course the fact that it would mean directly attacking Russia.

Or just carpet bomb it with 100lbers!

The 1000lb would not cut it, do you really think 100lb ones would?

[Falcon Horus]

Because we are talking about this rather than Russian hacking in the US elections.
Or as Womble would say, we are looking at the wrong shiny ball.

I wasn't -- thought it was a good distraction, hence why my initial thought was "Well played, Russia".

The Syrians were -to a degree- happy about it, less planes to drop bombs and deliver nerve agents, not exactly a bad thing.

Not for long though -- airfield is already back in use and Russia has provided extra military support.
It was a mosquito-bite, nothing more.

because "God bless America" etc.

LOL! True...

What last incident? And Trump's not been in the hot seat for any other op. Or are you on about that dead seal iirc back in jan, which was still under obama's watch..

Nope, it wasn't. That was very much his first act.

You see, when Obama was still in charge, that same mission was also on the agenda but intelligence agencies had given a negative advice about going in, and he listened. #45 ignored their advice and sent guys in anyway, and all went to hell in a handbasket.

So send in a few planes ahead with arram missiles to take out the air defenses.

Russia will be pleased, I'm sure.

[SGalisa]

True, but at what cost.. Checking, a single Tomahawk costs almost 570K a piece..

A flight of F117's could have done the same dropping "Smart bombs" imo at 1/5th the cost..

Smart bombs cost $40 000 apiece. An hour of warplane flight = $10 000. 1/10th of the cost... assuming no warplanes get shot down, that is. Losing a single warplane turns that upside down.

I think the Tomahawks were chosen because of the Russian air defenses being present.

Haven't read whole thread to this point, but has the question been addressed about when our USA military flew under President Obama's reign, and were forced NOT to strike down any targets with missiles against the Islamic State, etc., on missions, except 2 per month if even that much? Trump goes ahead, authorizes a single mission (with 59 missiles hitting all 59 targets.. short of 2 {other missiles?} where one was aborted and one malfunctioned), and beats the u-know-what out of a certain "terrorist" situation in development, and still gets his buttt's chewed off by some folks in the world..

[garhkal]

What do you do if Russia sent interceptors?, forgetting of course the fact that it would mean directly attacking Russia.

If they put themselves in our pathway, that's on them.

The 1000lb would not cut it, do you really think 100lb ones would?

They'ed have tore up the runway a lot more..

[Annoyed]

Haven't read whole thread to this point, but has the question been addressed about when our USA military flew under President Obama's reign, and were forced NOT to strike down any targets with missiles against the Islamic State, etc., on missions, except 2 per month if even that much? Trump goes ahead, authorizes a single mission (with 59 missiles hitting all 59 targets.. short of 2 {other missiles?} where one was aborted and one malfunctioned), and beats the u-know-what out of a certain "terrorist" situation in development, and still gets his buttt's chewed off by some folks in the world..

I think the Pentagon claims 58/59 hit their targets.
As to the rest of it, haters gonna hate.

[Gatefan1976]

If they put themselves in our pathway, that's on them.

I would have thought being in the military would have made you more appreciative of how bad a war with Russia would be, guess not.

They'ed have tore up the runway a lot more..

Nope, they would have done nothing to a hardened tarmac, like I said, you would have needed bunker busters to destroy the runway enough to put it out of operation.

[Falcon Horus]

Haven't read whole thread to this point, but has the question been addressed about when our USA military flew under President Obama's reign, and were forced NOT to strike down any targets with missiles against the Islamic State, etc., on missions, except 2 per month if even that much? Trump goes ahead, authorizes a single mission (with 59 missiles hitting all 59 targets.. short of 2 {other missiles?} where one was aborted and one malfunctioned), and beats the u-know-what out of a certain "terrorist" situation in development, and still gets his buttt's chewed off by some folks in the world..

You seem to be misinformed as to who the target was -- not Daesh/the Islamic State, but Bashar Al-Assad, currently still "legitimate" president of Syria and at war with his own people.

Nope, they would have done nothing to a hardened tarmac, like I said, you would have needed bunker busters to destroy the runway enough to put it out of operation.

Saw an opinion about that very same topic, and which busters would have been needed to do some serious and actual damage. Tomahawks didn't make the cut.


Also, apparently, #45 has stock in the company that makes these missiles... how convenient.

[Gatefan1976]

Saw an opinion about that very same topic, and which busters would have been needed to do some serious and actual damage. Tomahawks didn't make the cut.

You should trust me on these things FH, I have detailed files...........
(seriously, my dad was a plane nut, he grew up in Papua New Gueinia and played in the hulks of WW2 planes, and he spread that knowledge and love of planes to his kids)

Also, apparently, #45 has stock in the company that makes these missiles... how convenient.

Look out, I will counter with, "I don't think that was an issue".

The Tomahawk strike was simply the best option, trump profiting I don't think entered his mind. He saw dead babies via chemical weapons and responded viscerally, with no regard for anything else, even though he deplored it in 2013.

[Womble]

I would have thought being in the military would have made you more appreciative of how bad a war with Russia would be, guess not.

I really don't think Russia would be ready for all-out war.

The Russians are really good at bluffing. They caught the moment when the West is so war-weary and so disrupted that the mere hint of conflict sends all of Europe into a fit of terror, and they are milking it for all it's worth. But when the Turks shot down a Russian warplane, Russia responded with embargo, not with military tit-for-tat. Do you think they would be more willing to take on the USA than they were on Turkey?

Also, you don't have to destroy the tarmac if you can destroy the aircraft itself. The point of the strike was sending a message, making it clear to Syria that use of chemical weapons carries a heavy price. Depending on which reports you believe, between 6 and 20 Syrian aircraft was destroyed; I'd say message well sent even if it's just 6. US officials actually said that the runway was untouched.

[Annoyed]

You seem to be misinformed as to who the target was -- not Daesh/the Islamic State, but Bashar Al-Assad, currently still "legitimate" president of Syria and at war with his own people.

No, the target was an airbase from which said attacks were launched against his own people.

If the target was in fact al-Assad, al-Assad would likely be dead.

[Gatefan1976]

I really don't think Russia would be ready for all-out war.

The Russians are really good at bluffing. They caught the moment when the West is so war-weary and so disrupted that the mere hint of conflict sends all of Europe into a fit of terror, and they are milking it for all it's worth. But when the Turks shot down a Russian warplane, Russia responded with embargo, not with military tit-for-tat. Do you think they would be more willing to take on the USA than they were on Turkey?

I have -ZERO- doubts that the US would win a conventional war against the Russians, absolutely none, but that is not the point I was making Womble. It's "fear factor" is being a nuclear power, and it is the same leverage North Korea wants to use as well.

Yes, you can challenge Russia, you can call it on it's bluffs, but you need to be -DAMN- careful about it.

[Gatefan1976]

No, the target was an airbase from which said attacks were launched against his own people.

If the target was in fact al-Assad, al-Assad would likely be dead.

Yes, cause finding military leaders is always a few month process, just ask GW Bush..........