CNBC: US military has launched more than 50 missiles aimed at Syria: NBC News

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tovarisc said:
Still claims circling that strike aimed to destroy 33 planes, but managed only to destroy 6 planes that were in maintenance so they couldn't take off.


https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/850298650869854209

And Russians are doubling down on about 50% of Tomahawks never made it to target area.
Click to expand...

Russian claims should never be taken at face value.


The aircraft makes sense, because you can't take out an airbase with Cruise missiles, you take out aircraft parked and facilities around the airbase. They did the same in Iraq and Libya essentially grounding their air forces before they could take off.
 
So disappointed in the media in jumping on the Trump was so presidential, he pivoted nonsense.. almost the same rhetoric they ran after his lousy speech. Also that they seem so giddy about the prospect of war and mostly the change in subject on the Russian ties which seem to have all but evaporated.. I hope the people aren't buying all of this, need to see his approval numbers to see how gullible people really are.
 
Tovarisc said:
Still claims circling that strike aimed to destroy 33 planes, but managed only to destroy 6 planes that were in maintenance so they couldn't take off.


https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/850298650869854209

And Russians are doubling down on about 50% of Tomahawks never made it to target area.
Click to expand...

How would that even happen? Do those extremely expensive missiles have a 50% failure rate, or did the syrians have very effective anti-missile defenses?

Or... is this a lie.
 
Dubbedinenglish said:
Russian claims should never be taken at face value.
Click to expand...

Neither should American, if we are honest about it. Everything is always such huge success.

This strike was more attempt to message to Assad than about trying to harm his military forces or operations. Even wiping out some fuel depos means nothing if regime has some fuel trucks, drivers and fuel resources to spare from other sites.

2MF said:
How would that even happen? Do those extremely expensive missiles have a 50% failure rate, or did the syrians have very effective anti-missile defenses?

Or... is this a lie.
Click to expand...

If GPS signals get jammed in operational area and Tomahawks don't have reliable back up systems for guidance they can get lost and strike wrong areas. Still that is just speculation as one side says one thing and other side another thing without hard proof either way.
 
Tovarisc said:
Neither should American, if we are honest about it. Everything is always such huge success.

This strike was more attempt to message to Assad than about trying to harm his military forces or operations. Even wiping out some fuel depos means nothing if regime has some fuel trucks, drivers and fuel resources to spare from other sites.



If GPS signals get jammed in operational area and Tomahawks don't have reliable back up systems for guidance they can get lost and strike wrong areas. Still that is just speculation as one side says one thing and other side another thing without hard proof either way.
Click to expand...
A lot of American media is incredibly critical about military operations. So much so that it's created a wide spread desensitization and apathy of our foreign policy. Iraq as only called a success by Bush and a banner or after the surge, but no one looks at Iraq or Afghanistan and thinks "huge success". Our history of policy is widely criticized.

On the opposite hand, Russia has a history of claiming our actions were massively ineffective. While not impossible, cruise missiles aren't easily jammed or shot down. They have to systems beyond GPS to target then to their designation. Earlier models has 85% success rate of pinpoint accuracy. Any ineffectiveness of this straight-forward strike is undoubtedly a sign of Russian assistance with their technology and advanced warning to clear out.

The strike was never intended to cripple. The possibility that this was all for the appearance to publicly reprimand Syria and ruffle feathers of their Russian ally while largely remaining uninvolved can't be dismissed until we see the whole extent of escalation.
 
So after some time has passed..

What did this attack do? What did it damage? Looks like it didn't do shit considering they're still taking off and terrorizing their citizens.
 
Surfinn said:
So after some time has passed..

What did this attack do? What did it damage? Looks like it didn't do shit considering they're still taking off and terrorizing their citizens.
Click to expand...

Did you think half destroying an empty airbase would stop the war?
It was more a political warning "we are here and we want to take part in this mess you'll have to take us into account now"
 
Surfinn said:
So after some time has passed..

What did this attack do? What did it damage? Looks like it didn't do shit considering they're still taking off and terrorizing their citizens.
Click to expand...

All parties were informed about incoming strike and had time to clear out all key hardware and personnel from airbase. Strike was just mix of approval padding for Trump and (trying) to send message to Assad that he really shouldn't use chemical weapons.
 
Herb Alpert said:
Did you think half destroying an empty airbase would stop the war?
It was more a political warning "we are here and we want to take part in this mess you'll have to take us into account now"
Click to expand...
..when did I ever say, in any of my posts, that I thought this attack would stop the war?

The only message we sent is "we can attack you and allow you to continue to launch attacks against your people", considering it took them less than 24 hours to send planes to do just that, from the base we bombed.
 
Conflict news reporting white phosphorus used (again) by regime/Russia forces in civilian areas (again int' law).

Countries keep using and producing illegal weapons like white phosphorus and cluster bombs as if the regulations don't exist.

EDIT: Seems to be technically legal to use after some reading, unethical for sure
 
Condom said:
Conflict news reporting white phosphorus used (again) by regime/Russia forces in civilian areas (again int' law).

Countries keep using and producing illegal weapons like white phosphorus and cluster bombs as if the regulations don't exist.
Click to expand...

WP is legal weapon of war for use against hostile armed forces. It's very fucked up weapon even in that case and should be banned along with napalm from any use.

------

1zfPyqL.png

https://twitter.com/WarfareWW/status/850736963200188416
 
So we barely did any damage, Syria continues to bomb the same city it attacked on Tuesday and Russia is now making fun of Trump's attack.

Trump even telegraphed the attack, which counters everything he bitched to Obama about with the attack in Mosul.

Trump was right about one thing. The world is laughing at us. And this time it's Trump's fault.
 
Netherscourge said:
So we barely did any damage, Syria continues to bomb the same city it attacked on Tuesday and Russia is now making fun of Trump's attack.

Trump even telegraphed the attack, which counters everything he bitched to Obama about with the attack in Mosul.

Trump was right about one thing. The world is laughing at us. And this time it's Trump's fault.
Click to expand...

Yes, but he's no puppet now. You're the puppet.
 
Couleurs said:
It's basically a weak attempt by Trump to try to throw people off the Russian puppet train.

"B-but look I'm bombing their ally" (after warning everyone ahead of time and doing no real damage)
Click to expand...

Yea, but why would Trump get cozy with Russia now?

Everyone hates Russia more now then before. There won't be any lifting of sanctions or deals.

Tillerson said the sanctions weren't going anywhere until they get out of Crimea - which Russia just laughed at.

Whatever business interests or deals were in the pipeline pending a better relationship with Russia are history now.

Trump would have to willingly look like a failure and even make concessions to build a relationship with Russia now. There is no way a narcissistic, Nationalist egomaniac is going to admit a mistake in Syria after spending the past 4 years ripping Obama for the same mistakes.

Now, he's pretty much got to double-down on attacking Syria, which pisses off Russia.
 
Netherscourge said:
So we barely did any damage, Syria continues to bomb the same city it attacked on Tuesday and Russia is now making fun of Trump's attack.

Trump even telegraphed the attack, which counters everything he bitched to Obama about with the attack in Mosul.

Trump was right about one thing. The world is laughing at us. And this time it's Trump's fault.
Click to expand...

The city is under Al-Qaeda occupation
http://syria.liveuamap.com/

it has to be attacked, just not with chemical weapons .
 
Surfinn said:
So after some time has passed..

What did this attack do? What did it damage? Looks like it didn't do shit considering they're still taking off and terrorizing their citizens.
Click to expand...

Primarily it damaged the consensus that Trump should be opposed because he is evil and incompetent.

So yo can understand why he did it!
 
Surfinn said:
Well I don't think it helps the case for him not being incompetent.
Click to expand...

He's still incompetent, but lots of people now seem to feel that it's okay if he's incompetent if he's doing something that feels right. The possibility that he can't do that thing effectively seems irrelevant.
 
ISOM said:
As if nothing ever happened. This whole episode has been a big pile of nothing while the world continues to turn. Assad continues to kill his citizens while Trump can act like he actually did anything.
Click to expand...

Tomhawks aren't designed to take out runways, so of course the runways are fine. Regular ass bombs aren't even used for runways, there are purpose made bombs to disrupt them as much as possible.
 
U.S. strikes destroyed Syrian means to deliver chemical weapons: admiral

U.S. Navy Admiral Michelle Howard said on Saturday U.S. cruise missile strikes on an air base in Syria had destroyed the means to deliver chemical weapons from that base, and the U.S. military remained ready to carry out further strikes if needed.

"We conducted strikes against an air field which was the means by which the chemicals were launched into the air. Those means don't exist now," Howard said in an interview during a missile defense event in Cologne.

"The intention was to take out the airfield and to remove the means of the delivery of chemical weapons. I feel that was accomplished," she said.

Howard said the integration of the strikes was "flawless" and showed the ability of the U.S. Navy to project power around the world.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN17A0QD

I wonder what they destroyed that it fully removed capability to use chemicals. Didn't they intentionally avoid striking areas of field where they believed chemicals to be stored?
 
Tovarisc said:
U.S. strikes destroyed Syrian means to deliver chemical weapons: admiral

U.S. Navy Admiral Michelle Howard said on Saturday U.S. cruise missile strikes on an air base in Syria had destroyed the means to deliver chemical weapons from that base, and the U.S. military remained ready to carry out further strikes if needed.

"We conducted strikes against an air field which was the means by which the chemicals were launched into the air. Those means don't exist now," Howard said in an interview during a missile defense event in Cologne.

"The intention was to take out the airfield and to remove the means of the delivery of chemical weapons. I feel that was accomplished," she said.

Howard said the integration of the strikes was "flawless" and showed the ability of the U.S. Navy to project power around the world.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN17A0QD

I wonder what they destroyed that it fully removed capability to use chemicals. Didn't they intentionally avoid striking areas of field where they believed chemicals to be stored?
Click to expand...

She doesn't say that it fully removed capability. Destroying 6 planes would destroy a means by which chemical weapons may be delivered, so I'm pretty sure this is just a carefully worded statement of what we already know.
 
Information is so plentiful these days that the real results of an air strike can be found out pretty much straight away. So the standard US propaganda practice of making it all sound like something of biblical proportions doesn't work anymore.
 
Tovarisc said:
U.S. strikes destroyed Syrian means to deliver chemical weapons: admiral

U.S. Navy Admiral Michelle Howard said on Saturday U.S. cruise missile strikes on an air base in Syria had destroyed the means to deliver chemical weapons from that base, and the U.S. military remained ready to carry out further strikes if needed.

"We conducted strikes against an air field which was the means by which the chemicals were launched into the air. Those means don't exist now," Howard said in an interview during a missile defense event in Cologne.

"The intention was to take out the airfield and to remove the means of the delivery of chemical weapons. I feel that was accomplished," she said.

Howard said the integration of the strikes was "flawless" and showed the ability of the U.S. Navy to project power around the world.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKBN17A0QD

I wonder what they destroyed that it fully removed capability to use chemicals. Didn't they intentionally avoid striking areas of field where they believed chemicals to be stored?
Click to expand...
Interesting assessment... It clearly wasn't the runway, as it's still operational and was untargeted. The "hardened bunkers" were suspected to be the target by retired Generals speaking on CNN.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[AP] India fires missiles at Pakistan
News  2 3 4
159
2K
Gp1 replied
  • Locked
Syria has fallen
2
70
5K
Joramun replied
Jaws 50th anniversary on NBC.
12
156
kruis replied
More hype than you expected.
34
2K
MaestroMike replied
Joe Biden has prostate cancer
News  2
91
1K
Chuck Berry replied
Top Bottom