Do tell, what was the proposition that was assumed to be true because it hadn’t been proven false?
Nor was it under the Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush II administrations, since they all had major attacks on diplomatics targets despite prior warning, eh? What bunglers we elect.
Well…I guess you did say you weren’t going to explain it to us (my emphasis above), so I guess the fault is mine in asking for detail.
ETA: I’ll leave it to Acewiza to figure out how this effects the scoring.
I watched Fail Safe.
Now how about telling us what nuclear strikes have to do with Benghazi.
I refer you to your post #361 in this thread.
Maybe you can answer your own question again?
Well, it certainly wasn’t for our Republican lawmakers, when they deliberately left our service people out to dry in the name of cutting taxes. Again.
Do you really think this is some kind of a ‘Gotcha!’? I guess you don’t get that in #361, CannyDan detailed all the reasons that the proposed attack on Bengazi would be exponentially more complicated than a nuclear strike. Your response (x3) was basically a less convincing version of “nuh-uh!”
PS: I am fully prepared for another one sentence non-response from you about my reading comprehension.
You mean where I mentioned a SAC mission circa 1967? A mission in which every single operational detail was thought out, debated, settled, and committed to a final mission plan in advance? A plan that included specific flight headings, specific altitudes, specific airspeeds, specific electronic counter-measures, and a specific (although unknown to the flight crew until needed) target or targets using specific nuclear devices, to be dropped (back then, I don’t think there was any option other than ‘dropped’ but I might be wrong) at specific aiming points from specific altitudes? That reference?
And you want to equate this to a squad jumping into a transport plane in Italy, with whatever kit they might grab, and hightailing it for Libya to throw themselves into some unknown conflict involving unknown numbers of unknown individuals armed with unknown weapons in unknown terrain in order to achieve some unknown and undefinable *(“Help them!!”) *goal? Because Amuricah! ??
And you expect us to see the rationality of your position?
Absolutely.
Exponentially? Really? You have got to be kidding.
It’s no coincidence that planning military missions of ANY kind engenders complications, details and other matters you can not even dream of. Law of truly large numbers. Nine
Flight ops are by their very nature are some of the worst. Canny Dan seems to trivialize this like they just go off and bomb someplace, piece 'o cake. Nio biggie. That is absolutely rificulous, not to mention being a VERY bad analogy in this particular case.
Yeah uh!
Do you suppose they specifically accounted for anything that might go wrong?
Why must the point of every post you make be a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, inside something nobody cares about?
You’re now counting yourself??
Are you trying to suggest they anticipated everything that could possibly go wrong?
As if to say that is why it is so different from a hostage rescue rescue mission?
The point continues to elude you. In the sort of mission he’s describing, the details of the plan can be worked out in advance, at the leisure of the planners. Cities aren’t in the habit of moving around.
Unless you propose a team be on stand-by to launch a ground assault on every consulate operated by the United States, the same level of advance planning isn’t possible for a mission in relief of Benghazi.
No, you’re reading it wrong.
Confabulation. Ten.
Actual arguments put forth by yourself: zero.
Any response to my actual point, at all?
I’m no longer responding to confabulation about a rescue mission that never took place.
That concept gives true meaning to the audience for “Benghazi for Dummies.”
So, in a comparison of the staging time for a bombing mission and a rescue mission, you refuse to discuss the rescue mission, thus making comparison impossible.
Brilliant.
Referring again to the SAC missions? Then yes, indeed they did. Or at least they tried.
The primary mission of SAC was to deliver a response to an attack from the Soviet Union. As such, there were a large but finite number of possible targets available to heavy bombers. And given the locations of SAC bases, a finite number of routes available to reach those targets. Huge intelligence efforts were employed to determine as best as possible the counter-measures the defenders might employ. Weather, day/night visibility, possible involvement of escort aircraft, fuel loads and weight and temperature effects on flight characteristics of the B-52 were all taken into consideration. So were a host of additional factors I’m sure I’ve never even thought of.
From this were composed an almost unimaginable number of possible contingencies. “Loss of Number 6 engine on Route Segment Beta-8” and “Incapacitation of tail gunner during bomb run due to flak strike without loss of empennage control” and hundreds more. (Did you know the B-52 has a 50 caliber machine gun turret in the tail? Always seemed like tits on a boar to me, but I used to bass fish with my brother’s “Guns”.) Mission contingencies filled volumes the size of phone books, and the crews practiced them endlessly, both on the ground and in “training flights” that commonly lasted more than 11 hours.
So yeah, I’d say that they sure as hell tried to account for anything – really, **anything **-- that could go wrong.
Wanna measure Benghazi’s “specific mission plan” again?
So, do I count coup now? NUMBER!!