59 tomahawks

I am a little confused about the "Called ahead so they could evacuate the people and planes out of the target area?"

Jerry wrote: Looks for the Trump Twitter post from 2013 saying this would be a bad idea....

"The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!"

"President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!"

                                  - Some random reality TV personality

FSP_ZX2 wrote: Should have launched one more, you know, just because 60 is a nice, round number.

The news tonight said they did launch 60. One failed and fell into the sea.

spitfirebill wrote:

FSP_ZX2 wrote: Should have launched one more, you know, just because 60 is a nice, round number.

The news tonight said they did launch 60. One failed and fell into the sea.

Saw the wings off and you’d have a sweet land-speed chassis and power plant to build on and you’d have $2,017 to start with in your Challenge budget…how many feet of water is it in???

Here's a drop tank based car that's pretty similar to what you'd wind up with...

I’ll source the tires if one of you will take ownership of removing the 1,000 Lb. warhead; deal?

I have mixed emotions about this. While I do not believe we should escalate this with the Russians, we do need to send a message somehow, and I also think chemical weapon usage should be a red line for everyone worldwide. Keep in mind we targeted a military airstrip, they targeted civilians with WMD. There is a distinction there. We need to be very careful in how we proceed from this point on however. Syria, along with most of the Middle East, is a no-win situation. To me, all you can do is keep it from getting worse. How many countries have we directly or indirectly overthrown during the last 16 years: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, and to some degree, we helped the Syrian conflict along. How do you choose who is bad and who is good there?

Interestingly, we do business on a global scale, and I get to talk to people in places I never dreamed about a few years ago. One of our customers is in Egypt, and he is an interesting guy. One of the problems with us here in the US, according to those in the middle east, is that we do not understand our enemy. They get frustrated by our response sometimes as it is out of touch with what they experience. To put it simply, this is a religious war for them, a western type war for us, Europe and Russia too for that matter.

The everyday people there are far more sick of it than we are, but they usually lack the means to defeat it. They view our actions as both welcome and not-wanted, if that makes sense. Welcome if we would stick with it, not-wanted if all we do is over throw countries and leave them in turmoil. He has utter contempt for Obama era US for what happened in his home country, and didn't like Bush either.

I believe what we do from this point on can make or break our country as far as foreign policy goes and our ability to live in relative peace. Of course the big question is what is the correct way? Your guess is as good as mine, but I usually don't believe military response is always the answer.

In reply to racerdave600:

It seems your Egyptian customer and I share a common feeling towards our past governments. Jury is still out on the current...

racerdave600 wrote: II also think chemical weapon usage should be a red line for everyone worldwide. Keep in mind we targeted a military airstrip, they targeted civilians with WMD. There is a distinction there. We need to be very careful in how we proceed from this point on however.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but what makes you think the Syrian air force deployed WMDs? They had zero reasons to do so. The so-called moderate rebels on the other hand had all sorts if reasons to do so. The whole thing smells fishy to me.

In reply to Racerdave600:

I think one thing that most people don't consider, is that everyone involved in a situation like this thinks they're the 'good guys'. The US might consider themselves to be the 'white knight' coming to save the day, but to the opposition, we're seen as the 'evil empire' coming to impose our views and way of life on them.

Understanding how our actions will be received by the citizens of the region seems like a prudent consideration before simply acting on our own conscience or in support of our best interest. That will determine the effectiveness of our actions. Otherwise, we might s well just go in and make them our 51st state (sorry Puerto Rico).

T.J. wrote: I agree with pretty much everything you said, but what makes you think the Syrian air force deployed WMDs? They had zero reasons to do so. The so-called moderate rebels on the other hand had all sorts if reasons to do so. The whole thing smells fishy to me.

Excellent question!

T.J. wrote: I agree with pretty much everything you said, but what makes you think the Syrian air force deployed WMDs? They had zero reasons to do so. The so-called moderate rebels on the other hand had all sorts if reasons to do so. The whole thing smells fishy to me.

Certainly possible, but you could say that about almost any situation. Gassing your own civilians though... that's pretty cold.

Although, I have to say, I thought they had the rebels pretty much defeated, so not a lot of reason to go "next level" on them.

The situation over there is F'd up beyond belief and I just hope we don't make any kind of serious commitment, it will never work out well for the US (never has). Heck, a lot of the troops we have over there now are being used as "you better not hit me" targets to keep the Turks (supposedly our Nato allies) from attacking the Kurds (our semi-allied Arabs) who are also fighting the Syrian government (our enemy), who are being helped by the Russians who also have troops embedded with the Kurds to keep Turks (who are there semi-friendly enemies !?!? ) from attacking.

aircooled wrote: I have also always been confused by the "killing them this way is bad" part. Killing civilians is always considered bad. Killing a soldier with nerve gas is bad, shooting them with a shotgun is bad, burning them with napalm is bad, but stabbing someone in the belly with a bayonet and letting them slowly die is A OK ?!?!?

The thing is a a bayonet doesn't roam around the area stabbing every living thing. Sarin doesn't distinguish between civilians, soldiers, and family pets.

That's the difference.

Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote: In reply to WilD: I think it would be a good band name though...

I could see a good like....bluegrass metal baND or something.

Appleseed wrote:

aircooled wrote: I have also always been confused by the "killing them this way is bad" part. Killing civilians is always considered bad. Killing a soldier with nerve gas is bad, shooting them with a shotgun is bad, burning them with napalm is bad, but stabbing someone in the belly with a bayonet and letting them slowly die is A OK ?!?!?

The thing is a a bayonet doesn't roam around the area stabbing every living thing. Sarin doesn't distinguish between civilians, soldiers, and family pets. That's the difference.

I am really more confused by the shotgun, bayonet and napalm distinction then the WMD distinction.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but what makes you think the Syrian air force deployed WMDs? They had zero reasons to do so. The so-called moderate rebels on the other hand had all sorts if reasons to do so. The whole thing smells fishy to me.

The story is that we have intel that tracked the planes that dropped the gas from the airfield that was hit.

Chemical weapons have been a red line not to be crossed for 100 years, since the world agreed that they were not such a good idea after WWI. Not only do they kill painfully and indiscriminately, but unlike other weopons, they leave the infrastructure intact. It would be almost too easy for an aggresive nation with a stockpile of chemical weopons to take over another territory.

I think if there was going to be any response at all, this was probably one of the most appropriate yet safest decisions.

T.J. wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: II also think chemical weapon usage should be a red line for everyone worldwide. Keep in mind we targeted a military airstrip, they targeted civilians with WMD. There is a distinction there. We need to be very careful in how we proceed from this point on however.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but what makes you think the Syrian air force deployed WMDs? They had zero reasons to do so. The so-called moderate rebels on the other hand had all sorts if reasons to do so. The whole thing smells fishy to me.

Other than Syria, Russia, and the US, who else in the area has the means to drop weapons from a plane?

I've not heard that any rebels have planes, including isis.

Boost_Crazy wrote: Not only do they kill painfully and indiscriminately, but unlike other weopons, they leave the infrastructure intact. It would be almost too easy for an aggresive nation with a stockpile of chemical weopons to take over another territory.

I've honestly never thought of that reason as another for why we shouldn't use chemical weapons, but it makes sense.

Well if you believe it, the aircraft was tracked back to this airfield.

Chemical weapons,including nerve gases, don't require sophisticated delivery systems.That's one of the reasons they are banned. Aircraft not required.

spitfirebill wrote: Well if you believe it, the aircraft was tracked back to this airfield.

This is likely the smoking gun here. I am sure the US is tracking all the air traffic and most of the ground traffic over there. There apparently are whiteness who saw a plane drop the bombs. I am not sure the US has any reason to make up something like this so they can destroy a few planes.

Doesn't make Russia look good considering they were responsible for removing all the chemical weapons from Syria.

This also flies in the face of the assumption that Putin has some influence in the US. Of course, it might be a plan to obscure that. But, as noted, you can twist almost any situation into a conspiracy if you try hard enough.

Why didn't the US put the airport out of commission ?

It was reported today that Syrian planes were flying from there and bombing that town

alfadriver wrote:

T.J. wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: II also think chemical weapon usage should be a red line for everyone worldwide. Keep in mind we targeted a military airstrip, they targeted civilians with WMD. There is a distinction there. We need to be very careful in how we proceed from this point on however.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but what makes you think the Syrian air force deployed WMDs? They had zero reasons to do so. The so-called moderate rebels on the other hand had all sorts if reasons to do so. The whole thing smells fishy to me.

Other than Syria, Russia, and the US, who else in the area has the means to drop weapons from a plane? I've not heard that any rebels have planes, including isis.

ISIS have taken to using drones for surveillance and for dropping small ordinance. Could a drone be used to drop a chemical weapon? Possibly, but it's hard to say.

The stance by Syria and Russia is the chemical weapon was in the target hit by their air strike and the weapon release was unfortunate collateral damage. True or not, it is a plausible scenario. The counter-arguement is if ISIS had these sorts of weapons, they would be using them.

Who knows... maybe the 59 missiles were nearing the end of their duty cycle and were going to be taken out of service soon anyway.

It's all mindless speculation at this point.

Targeted munitions like Tomahawks aren't really the ordinance we'd use to try to make the runways unusable. That would take a lot more bombs. Like a squadron of B52's could delivery. At this point, they didn't want to risk conventional aircraft getting shot down.

NOHOME wrote: I am a little confused about the "Called ahead so they could evacuate the people and planes out of the target area?"

My understanding is that Russians were on the base at the time.

Chadeux wrote:

NOHOME wrote: I am a little confused about the "Called ahead so they could evacuate the people and planes out of the target area?"

My understanding is that Russians were on the base at the time.

Ah...don't want to upset the boyfriend. Got it.

59000 lbs. of high explosive an so little damage

Damaged runways can the fixed pretty quickly.