|
mdemone posted:Because it would rally ten times as many people to their cause, is that what you mean? It's not like they are all standing on an open field with big target signs on their heads, dude. They would hide in urban areas, villages, mountains etc. The best thing air strikes can do is to bomb their formations and artillery positions, plus maybe some drone strikes against their top officers. fspades fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Aug 8, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
mdemone posted:Because it would rally ten times as many people to their cause, is that what you mean? Per your request I'm not even getting into that. They're not stupid, they know how to hide, move and dig.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Because it would rally ten times as many people to their cause, is that what you mean? They are unbelievable assholes, but they're much, much more than religious yahoos with AK-47's. Dropping a couple, or a couple hundred, big bombs isn't going to do much at all to intimidate them, but it will kill civilians and give ISIS recruits from across the Middle East. And the more we do in the region, the better it is for their recruiting. Very little gets jihadis motivated like a potential showdown with the US.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
Gregor Samsa posted:They are unbelievable assholes, but they're much, much more than religious yahoos with AK-47's. Dropping a couple, or a couple hundred, big bombs isn't going to do much at all to intimidate them, but it will kill civilians and give ISIS recruits from across the Middle East. And the more we do in the region, the better it is for their recruiting. Very little gets jihadis motivated like a potential showdown with the US. I certainly understand all of this. But surely they have limited hardware resources that could be seriously crippled, or are they way more loaded than I imagine? And again I should say that I'm not asking whether something should be done. Even one more civilian death on America's hands in this region would be one too many. It's not like us to stand around with our thumbs in our asses, though, because blowing people up is what we do and we're very good at it. mdemone fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Because it would rally ten times as many people to their cause, is that what you mean? This is sort of like the flawed attitude toward lethal injection drugs in places like Arizona...that double the drugs = double the efficacy. Airstrikes involve bombs that explode. There are people living in the towns and cities ISIS controls. People who look exactly like ISIS. If you blanket the sky with drones and the ground with bombs you will slaughter millions of people who are not fighters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I certainly understand all of this. But surely they have limited hardware resources that could be seriously crippled, or are they way more loaded than I imagine? No they definitely have plenty of stuff that can be blown up and leave them in a degraded position. But they're not going to disappear, and it's hard to imagine how far back their borders could be pushed. The Peshmerga aren't going to chase them to the Syrian border.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I certainly understand all of this. But surely they have limited hardware resources that could be seriously crippled, or are they way more loaded than I imagine? Any hardware that ISIS has got that's vulnerable to bombs was aquired by capturing it. Even if the US blows up every tank and cannon that they've got, ISIS could just capture new materiel from the next military depot that they overrun. Either that or they could just stash their tanks and guns in Syria, since the US probably isn't going to conduct airstrikes on Syrian soil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
Edit: ^^^ Thanks, this is more along the lines of what I'm asking about. ^^^i am harry posted:This is sort of like the flawed attitude toward lethal injection drugs in places like Arizona...that double the drugs = double the efficacy. I know that, dammit. I continue to make it clear that this is the exact reason why we shouldn't. However, we are not known for performing morally-correct actions, and we've blanketed countries with fire many times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Blanketing countries with fire is what got us here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
i am harry posted:Blanketing countries with fire is what got us here. Right, and the Pentagon has suddenly and only just now realized the error of its ways? I'm not asking "why aren't we justified in doing this", I'm asking "why didn't we already stick our dick in the mashed potatoes like we always do".
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
Dams are pretty large and obvious targets so the likelihood of that is basically nil. And if any ISIS infantry try to exploit it for safety, there's always cluster bombs and incendiaries.  SedanChair posted:That's a big if. And the wily guys who have been active since OIF tend to send the young and dumb guys to get martyred; a million Islamist Caros can die without affecting institutional memory. No, it's not a 'big if'. If they're dumb enough to gravitate to an area where they're taking significant losses, then that's a good thing. Air campaigns are more effective against enemy concentrations. Second, there's obviously a double standard going on here. The narrative in this thread has been that ISIS has done as well as it has because it has a large core of veteran fighters, and now people like you are acting like they'll magically disappear and be replaced with cannon fodder. Here's the simple facts of it: the situation is pretty loving ideal for an air campaign. This isn't Vietnam, there's no jungle for them to melt away into, there's just desert. The tanks and artillery they've captured has to be either hidden or lost, and vehicle columns are going to be hosed (Iraq's Mi-24s were doing a pretty good job of cropdusting ISIS columns at the start of the offensive until they started taking losses). If ISIS loses its ability to quickly mobilize and reinforce its forces, then that gives the Iraqi Army and Peshmerga a lot more breathing room. ISIS does not have an unlimited supply of men or equipment. Anyway all this dumb retard slapfighting between illrepute and co is ridiculous; even if the US goes and plasters a dozen loving orphanages, it's bodycount will be less than ISIS so far. It's pretty loving obvious that intervention is the least bad option here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:50
|
|
What if the US bombs the dam by mistake?
|
edit: wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Why isn't the Iraqi air force using SU-25s to help the Kurds? Is it a mix of unwillingness to help the kurds and undertraining of the air forces? The organization that sent the two italian volunteers kidnapped in Syria has been accused of amateurism and negligence: http://www.dagospia.com/rubrica-29/cronache/ragazze-sparite-siria-volontariato-internazionale-galassia-82575.htm (in italian; the gist of the article is that the girls should've never been sent in Syria. Other organizations train Syrian volunteers outside Syria and then send them back with humanitarian equipment). Cippalippus fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Right, and the Pentagon has suddenly and only just now realized the error of its ways? Airstrikes alone can't annihilate ISIS. Even with the presence of ground forces the US military failed to destroy them in the past. Why are you still arguing about this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
fspades posted:Airstrikes alone can't annihilate ISIS. Even with the presence of ground forces the US military failed to destroy them in the past. Why are you still arguing about this? I think you're under the impression that I'm playing some kind of devil's advocate in a Socratic exercise supporting military strikes, which is not the case. I'm asking out of simple confusion because I don't know a lot about the particulars of ISIS and their resources/extent. Clearly this is the wrong place to have done so, or at least the wrong time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
500 pound bombs are the smallest ones in the US inventory anyways unless they started using Mk81s again (250).
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Do airstrikes do anything to stop the genocide and give the Christians a bit more time to leave for Kurdish areas?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:500 pound bombs are the smallest ones in the US inventory anyways unless they started using Mk81s again (250). No, they aren't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Diameter_Bomb Hell, the SDB probably isn't either, but it's one that is very often used, is being developed extensively, and packs less punch than a 500 pounder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
I'm pretty cool with the US blowing up ISIS material. If we start bombing cities then I will get mad. gently caress ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Right, and the Pentagon has suddenly and only just now realized the error of its ways? A different commander-in-chief who isn't puppeteered by a board member of Halliburton seems like the most obvious explanation to that specific question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
I have another theoretical question. Let's say that IS decides that they have 'felt' there borders and realize they cannot expand anymore at this time. If they just keep the cities they have now, do you think the Iraqi Army will even attempt to take them back? Once again this is just theoretical , and from everything I have seen IS seems to be too convinced they are doing God's work to let things mellow for even a week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
According to that Institute for the Study of War, it isn't even clear that ISIS has the dam. I was somewhat concerned that the Kurds did some strategic retreats so that they could go to Washington and be all "OMG we're screwed, help!" I can't remember where I read it, but it was some opinion piece in Wapo or the NYTimes that expressed some skepticism over the plight of the pesh merga. My concern with dealing with the Kurds has been that they are opportunists (politically). The question as to whether the US should intervene in this situation is an interesting one, I can see the point that since we literally can draw a causal connection between our actions and the current state of affairs we should not intervene. However, since we caused the current state of affairs we should probably intervene. Also our strategic interests are at stake. I'm not entirely convinced that air strikes are a brilliant fix it to the situation; I think providing guns and money to the kurds would probably be a faster, more solid solution to the immediate problems in northern Iraq. However, god knows what that could cause in the future. The Obama Administration may be hoping to intervene using airstrikes to avoid a full scale mobilization of the kurdish population as a hedge against future problems. With an election coming up I sincerely doubt that the US involvement will amount to a whole lot. Comedy option: install a kurdish regime in Baghdad, fix the sunni/shia problem and the kurdistan independence problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I think you're under the impression that I'm playing some kind of devil's advocate in a Socratic exercise supporting military strikes, which is not the case. I'm asking out of simple confusion because I don't know a lot about the particulars of ISIS and their resources/extent. Clearly this is the wrong place to have done so, or at least the wrong time. No, I'm just frustrated because you seem to believe bombing solves every military problem. I'm not even talking about political or humanitarian dimension here; just the idea of defeating an insurgency with liberal use of explosives... You know Taliban is still alive and kicking, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I have another theoretical question. Let's say that IS decides that they have 'felt' there borders and realize they cannot expand anymore at this time. If they just keep the cities they have now, do you think the Iraqi Army will even attempt to take them back? The Iraqi army doesn't seem to have the capability to launch an offensive against a wet paper bag, let alone ISIS. I mean, it could be that Maliki and co decide that they have to attack, but they won't be making much headway. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I have another theoretical question. Let's say that IS decides that they have 'felt' there borders and realize they cannot expand anymore at this time. If they just keep the cities they have now, do you think the Iraqi Army will even attempt to take them back? Not as it currently stands. It will probably take an "Iraqi Army" that is mostly Iranians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I'm joining this situation late, but I had a bit of a question, not from a moral/immoral perspective but just regarding what is possible. Yes, depending on what we're willing to use. But we won't because the collateral damage would be awful and it would over-commit us to a fight with ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:I'm pretty cool with the US blowing up ISIS material. If we start bombing cities then I will get mad. gently caress ISIS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:No, they aren't. I don't think that's really deployed in big numbers compared to the giant stack of Mk82s still rolling around since the F-35 being delayed meant orders for it were cut. Plus apparently each one costs triple what kitted up MK82s do and the only plane using them at the moment is the F-15. Apparently the interesting thing about the SDB is the explosive component now causes toxic effects if shrapnel gets into your body because it's made partially of tungsten, which is great if you're the IAF. Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Aug 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I have another theoretical question. Let's say that IS decides that they have 'felt' there borders and realize they cannot expand anymore at this time. If they just keep the cities they have now, do you think the Iraqi Army will even attempt to take them back? It would be an unsustainable position for them. They would be surrounded with hostile regimes and no defensible borders. Their best bet would be to make their neighbors recognize their independence and good loving luck with that. Ultimately their success depends on two things: Getting the support of local Sunnis and overthrowing Iraqi and Syrian governments in a short period of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:I don't think that's really deployed in big numbers compared to the giant stack of Mk82s still rolling around since the F-35 being delayed meant orders for it were cut. Plus apparently each one costs triple what kitted up MK82s do and the only plane using them at the moment is the F-15. $70,000 - $90,000 per bomb.  I'll be extremely lucky if I ever have an annual salary that high.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:$70,000 - $90,000 per bomb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:That's actually pretty cheap. Tomahawk cruise missiles are like 1.2 million apiece.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Any hardware that ISIS has got that's vulnerable to bombs was aquired by capturing it. Even if the US blows up every tank and cannon that they've got, ISIS could just capture new materiel from the next military depot that they overrun. They could, but it would still hamper their operations. Right now one of the major assets on the islamists side is their operational speed. When they strike somewhere and quickly overwhelm the defenders it leaves their opponents reeling, allowing ISIS to blitzkrieg from town to town because their enemies are too slow to react and it takes time to reorganize your routed brigades to fight again, if you can catch them. Air strikes allow for near instantaneous reaction to ISIS attacks making it harder to march through the desert in big convoys. Any material losses they suffer would force them to go back to their closest bases to replace. All this would cost them time, and time allows for their opponents to organize their defenses/counter-attacks. ISIS would change their tactics so there wouldn't be juicy targets for air attacks, for sure. And that is a good thing, because you would no longer be seeing these undefeatable zerg rush columns: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Why isn't the Iraqi air force using SU-25s to help the Kurds? Is it a mix of unwillingness to help the kurds and undertraining of the air forces? As I recall, they only just now got some Frogfoots. Also, the Kurds are currently trying to break away from the central Iraqi government (and have been for... decades). "Unwillingness" might be understating the case. I would only be slightly surprised that if in the future America stops liking the Kurds, the Iraqi airforce will just bomb wherever they and ISIS are fighting and call it "two birds, one stone." fspades posted:No, I'm just frustrated because you seem to believe bombing solves every military problem. I'm not even talking about political or humanitarian dimension here; just the idea of defeating an insurgency with liberal use of explosives... You know Taliban is still alive and kicking, right? Here is where that is coming from - you know how after WWI, there was this idea that the German army was never defeated in the field? That sort of "founding myth" that defined the next German government/culture in quite a number of ways? America has the same thing, which is we've been fighting with kid gloves ever since WWII. This is in some sense true. If we don't mind leaving nothing but a glowing, possibly radioactive field of glass the size of a given country I can say we could easily eliminate whatever enemy operatives were in that country. However it isn't realistic or practical, so we never actually do it. Thus we have the idea that "we always have more/bigger/better bombs we don't use because we care too much, but if you push us we'll come back and pull the Sun out of the sky and drop it on your head," that never actually gets tested because it would end the world if we use nukes or turns the terrorist-o-meter up to 11 if we really "cut loose" with all those big bombs we have in storage for that war with the Soviets that never went down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Do they stick the guys with the colored pickups in the back of the convoy or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
The bombing will not destroy ISIS, but what it will do is reduce ISIS morale and movements, and increase the morale of those that oppose them. This, in itself, is a big thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
And more importantly hopefully make them have to worry more about that then rounding up innocent people and executing them en masse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
I think by displaying a cavalier attitude about genocide and putting out media that makes it look easy is what is driving recruitment. And they have been basically calling out any rivals with no repercussions, further encouraging new members. I see Americas well thought out, precision air strikes dropping that recruitment number. When convoys like the one pictured above are being lit-up, I think the non-ideological members will start hesitating. Right now it seems like a party all the time anarchy for ISIS members.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Sancho posted:Do they stick the guys with the colored pickups in the back of the convoy or something? White pickups reign supreme across all of the middle east as far as I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
While I bet it won't exactly be happy times for ISIS, their propaganda guy in the Vice video basically gave us their line on airstrikes: "what a bunch of cowards!" Who knows how they'll deal with it.Dr.Caligari posted:I think by displaying a cavalier attitude about genocide and putting out media that makes it look easy is what is driving recruitment. And they have been basically calling out any rivals with no repercussions, further encouraging new members.  if you think America's plans are ever well thought out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 15:57
|
|
