Yeah, this guy up-thread told me “… Russia told the Syrians, and almost everyone on base decided to take a vacation(taking ghod knows what with them as they rushed out the gate).” Not sure where he got his info or if it’s any good though.
IVANA.
IVANKA.
Sounds suspicious to me-What about you?
Hmmm.
I can fix that, i have her TA50 all packed and ready to drop
And you managed to read that as “…some mechanics were able to evacuate the strike zone beforehand”?
According to this link:
Using 59 Tomahawk missiles, we managed to kill six soldiers and nine civilians, four of which were children.
No word as to whether the civilians or the children were missile mechanics, though.
I guess the Syrians are claiming there were 9 killed in the attack…4 of them children.
ETA: Or what Czarcasm said.
Unless the B-2s are detectable by NATO radar, the bombers could violate NATO-ally airspace and no one would be the wiser. (When demanded, “Did they violate our airspace?” US DoD could lie to the Turks and say the bombers took the long route around.) And if they *are *detectable by radar - even a NATO ally’s radar - then that’s a more troubling concern for Skunk Works than diplomatic niceties.
It depends on what you considered worth accomplishing at what risk. Where lies the balance of risks and benefits?
Smaller gain at smaller risk …
The chemical attack was horrific but the fact remains that the 72 reported to have died in it are nothing compared to the daily horror in that country, including to babies dying horribly. In the big picture a small horror of great symbolic value. Its value to Assad was that he thought (because of what Trump and Tillerson were saying) he could do it and message to his opposition that he could do anything and no one will help them or do anything about it. The principle of terror.
The value of the response was less how many planes were destroyed or soldiers killed. It was eliminating or at least degrading that message.
So do it in a way that decreases the risk of direct conflict with Russia.
Where do you measure a measured response to? I’m okay with this one, even if it was only needed because of the Trump team’s initial idiocy.
Hasn’t this happened numerous times? Desert Fox in 1998 in Iraq, the 1986 raid on Libya, etc.
Czarcasm, it’s not clear to me: Are you upset that we killed too many people, or not enough?
BTW, my post #136 was a response to your hypothetical in #129. It wasn’t a claim of fact about Syrian mechanics. I may have unintentionally confused you with my snarky comment in #141.
Yes and no.
No immediate effect, because 11+ hours to target minimum from their base.
So you lose that sudden “Do that again and i will reach out from anywhere at anytime and slap the shit out of you” effect.
Has no $ value per say, but it has value.
Also, if you lose even one to a lucky AAA battery, thats 2 billion for the plane, X for the munitions, and a US air crew that is as good as dead, even if they parachuted to the ground safely, and i’m sure their families would argue the monetary value of that with you until you died from old age.
The fact that the USN ships have not been fired at by salvos of missiles is a very good sign that yes infact the Russians did get out. And the latest claim is that 6-9 aircraft depending on source. Even if they are Su-22’s as claimed and not other support aircraft, the Russians have hundreds of those lying around in Siberia and can make up losses, they have been doing that anyway with the SyAAF (and Iraq in 2014).
And the air base? Come on. Rapidly repairing airbases to make them functional after and during multiple strikes is old hat any half way decent Air Force. They can have it up running fairly early.
You really should stop believing Pentagon press releases, or should have since 2004.
What do you mean by this?
None, if they were all at the Syrian equivalent of the White House holding undefined advisory jobs to their father.
That’s how governments work these days, isn’t it?
Obama’s going-out-the-door Libya raid on January 19th of this year, etc.
It makes them difficult to detect, not invisible. HF and VHF RADARs can track them just fine.
Oh goody, we get to do this bullshit again. :smack:
Hm…something fishy about this though. Doing a Google map search I don’t see how US tomahawks could have missed that badly to hit that village. :dubious:
[QUOTE=AK84]
The fact that the USN ships have not been fired at by salvos of missiles is a very good sign that yes infact the Russians did get out. And the latest claim is that 6-9 aircraft depending on source. Even if they are Su-22’s as claimed and not other support aircraft, the Russians have hundreds of those lying around in Siberia and can make up losses, they have been doing that anyway with the SyAAF (and Iraq in 2014).
And the air base? Come on. Rapidly repairing airbases to make them functional after and during multiple strikes is old hat any half way decent Air Force. They can have it up running fairly early.
[/QUOTE]
You were the one who seemed to be denying that the strike did anything and that the Syrians got everything as well as everyone out. If you acknowledge that now then that’s fine by me. It’s debatable as to the effect of such a symbolic counter attack, but based on the level of shrieking by Russian, Iranian and Syrian representatives I don’t think THEY are agreeing with you that it was nothing to see here, move along move along. YMMV, but I think it shook them up, which was the idea.
I don’t often agree with President Carrot Top, but when I do I…well, feel pretty sick. And I’m not sure I DO agree with this strike. But saying it’s nothing is being in denial.
I gather most of the time, he operates on the assumption that his supporters want what he wants - the greater glory and enrichment of Donald Trump.
Yup. The Serbs demonstrated the limititations of “stealth” in vivid detail way back in 1999.
I’m upset that he is using such an obvious “Wag The Dog” antic in an attempt to make people look away from his multiple fuck-ups.
Not that I’m accusing this Prez of lying through his teeth at the drop of a hat if he thinks it will get him what he wants, but do we have anything other than his reassurance that the deadly gas to he says made this fiasco necessary came from the base he targeted?
That is why we need to know what we destroyed-to see if his public goal and his real goal come within miles of each other.