The Stainless Steel Rat:
…again. (e.g., WWI)
I recently reread Norman Schwarzkopf’s book. All of the coalition generals were very worried that a desperate Saddam would resort to chemical attacks.
It’s a sad reality of our current world. Third world countries know chemical weapons are cheap to make and devastatingly effective. The treaties (banning these weapons) that major nation’s signed mean very little to the new despots.
I am very puzzled why Assad used them this time. Everything was going his way. Russia had turned around most of his losses. Trump even sent a few troops a couple weeks ago to fight ISIS in Syria.
Assad has jeopardized all his gains. He can’t stay in power now. He’ll eventually face a war crimes trial.
There have to be consequences for a gas attack on civilians.
I’m saddened but not surprised that some people view this retaliation as a bad thing, simply because Trump made the decision. I’m glad I live in a country that doesn’t see dead babies as an opportunity to politicize something.
Footage of the air base isn’t exceptionally impressive. I’m no expert but most of the base seems intact and the runways functional. Supposedly seven aircraft were destroyed and a few buildings but “fifty-nine missiles” sounds more impressive than it looks on video (granted, Russia says about half of them missed).
No question about who “owns” Syria now, is there?
Well, she called for bombing of Syria’s airfields yesterday.
Probably a stupid question, but why Tomahawk missiles as opposed to other types of missiles that might be better at destroying bunkers etc.?
That the “entire Trump national security team” agreed to do something is about as confidence inspiring as getting investment guidance from a bowl of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes™.
Given that the US essentially destabilized the entire region due to the ill-advised, unjustifed, and unilateral invasion of Iraq, I think the United States does bear some degree of responsibility for the long term consequences. What the US should do is the question; a troops on the ground effort is probably unsupportable and unpopular, boosting the “rebels” (which are a disjointed collection of different interests, some of whom are arguably associated with global terrorist networks that we opposed) has not worked out, negotiation with Putin to apply political pressure or sanctions is a non-starter, and this pointless bombing of an airfield after providing prior warning is purely an exercise in showmanship. At this point, there are no good answers, and anything we do, including removing Assad from power without having a plan for post-Assad governance, will probably just increase bloodshed and instability for the foreseeable future. What a fucking mess.
There is no way that half of the 59 TLAM Block IV missiles missed specifically designated targets. The BGM-109 ‘Tomahawk’ land attack missile has a long history of high reliability in accurately striking designated targets, and such a poor performance in this attack would be unprecidented. If that story or estimate turns out to be genuine it would have to be due to intentional mistargeting of the missiles.
Stranger
The UGM-109E ‘Tomahawk Land Attack Missile’ Block IV is a rapidly targetable terrain-following cruise missile that is easily deployed from guided missile destroyers (in this case the USS Ross (DDG-71) and USS Porter (DDG-78) deployed as part of the United States Navy Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea). The per unit cost is about $600k all up, so this attack cost about $35M in munitions costs, which is relatively cheap compared to a bombing campaign of comparable strike capability, and without risks to US pilots or expensive ground attack aircraft, or the potential for direct confrontation with Russian aircraft. The US does not currently field any conventional long range ballistic missiles and the air-launched AGM-158 JASSM is no more capable than the Tomahawk (though ostensibly stealthier).
Stranger
I suspect that damage footage was highly selective.
There had to be considerably more damage then what Syria and Russia are admitting. 59 Tomahawks is a lot of firepower. Their guidance systems are reliable.
The US report is that 58 of 59 hit their targets. No cite off the cuff but I think it was a CBS story.
Both sides obviously have plenty of reason to fudge although I’ll defer to those here with knowledge of the missiles. Happily admit to just regurgitating news reports with no first-hand knowledge.
So regular bombs are ok? Regular bombs don’t deserve a severe response? :dubious:
I mean, can you clarify what you mean and explain why regular bombs aren’t considered “weapons of mass destruction”?
Ask the Nurenburg Tribunals.
If you can’t differentiate between poison gas attacks and smart bombs… 
When ever have Syrians benefited US interests? We allowed the elder Assad to destroy the town of Hama without consequence. That was a mistake. Before Barbarossa, Hitler told his generals that the world did nothing about the Turkish slaughter of Armenians. We didn’t learn the lessons that outrageous crimes against humanity must be promptly punished.
Destroyed is probably not the best use of wording for the strike, but if those buildings were the sites of the special weapons storage, decontamination, weather center and BDA, and of course the seven a/c that were destroyed, were the modified ones for special weapons deployment, and the ready 5 and 20 deployment revetments, then their program has taken a really big hit.
It’s not clear to me how such a strike, unless it’s part of a larger strategy that we’re unaware of, could be of any use in toppling Assad, especially since we warned the Russians first. Maybe Trump was just looking for an excuse to help the bottom line of the companies that build the missiles we used in the attack.
The goal is to make Assad understand there’s severe consequences for violating international laws by using banned weapons against his people.
Perhaps this will make him reconsider using them. We’ll see.
Right now, there’s no clear plan to unseat Assad from power. Although it’s bound to happen eventually.
The only way to actually effect real change in the region would be total war – commit the entire country (and probably the entire West) to total war and a decades-long effort to change it.
If we’re not willing to do that (and I’m certainly not), then anything we do will make the situation worse for everyone involved.
And its about time the US sent the message. Way too much purposeful apathy from the last 8 years of that administration. I, in no way, support war or any other type of violence but some people need to be set in their place. I really dont want to become the United States of Islam/Extremists
Any abuse of children is unacceptable.
This is what I heard on the news this morning concerning the bombing
Putin had a time line with which he did not deal in a timely manner
I don’t buy the either/or analogy. Was the only way to end communism, a much more powerful institution, total war? The way to effect change is to make their elites understand that their only way forward is to release their grip on power. Then change can come with minimal bloodshed.