|
SedanChair posted:Obama can't really avoid looking like an impotent fool if he does nothing. He'll take a page from Clinton's book and order strikes.
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Here's a DIY rifle from Syria that fires 23mm rounds, as used by the ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun. Ha it's a blast from the past for the old World War II anti-tank rifle concept.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Obama can't really avoid looking like an impotent fool if he does nothing. He'll take a page from Clinton's book and order strikes. Yea he's blustered too much to not do something, he's already taken the hit from isolationists with Libya, and the image of people choking to death on toxins is enough to win over most everyone but the hardliners on that front. I agree with the Clinton comparison, he'll stick to nice safe strikes and pray he doesn't have to deal with an aspirin factory getting hit this time around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Obama can't really avoid looking like an impotent fool if he does nothing. He'll take a page from Clinton's book and order strikes. My prediction is that it'll be a limited number of strikes and then we'll bow out. If chemical weapons attacks happen again, we'll bomb again and then leave. Brown Moses posted:Here's a DIY rifle from Syria that fires 23mm rounds, as used by the ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun. Interesting videos, but I'm bothered by the fact that he's wearing sandals to a war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yeah I'm assuming that's what this is, although I wonder what Russia's reaction will be Russia will be probably be complain but secretly be fine. Cruise missiles aren't really going to effect what's going on in Syria in any significant way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:
I think so. I mean hopefully it will set up a calculus in Assad's head that chemical weapons strike means goodbye to some expensive military facilities. Not total destruction so he's got nothing to lose, but a price to pay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Nothing tonight it seemsquote:More from @CBSDavidMartin: Joint Chiefs Chair GEN Martin Dempsey expected to present options for Syria strike at White House mtg tomorrow. https://twitter.com/CharlieKayeCBS/status/371045553527730176
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:Nothing tonight it seems Jeez what happened to the days where you keep things secret so your enemy won't know when you're going to attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Jeez what happened to the days where you keep things secret so your enemy won't know when you're going to attack. The hell are they going to do to avoid a drat Tomahawk? It ain't exactly Antietam where you can just hook the cannons up to the horses and haul rear end before the arty hits, the best they could do is hope they can move poo poo without having it show up on satellite or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:the best they could do is hope they can move poo poo without having it show up on satellite or whatever. Speaking of! U.S. detected activity at Syria chemical weapons sites before attack
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:Nothing tonight it seems I bet Dempsey's pissed. He's been very publicly against any involvement in Syria, to the point where he's sometimes disagreeing with the administration's stance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I bet Dempsey's pissed. He's been very publicly against any involvement in Syria, to the point where he's sometimes disagreeing with the administration's stance. Dempsey can probably live with limited cruise strikes. It doesn't really commit the US to anything long term, and blows of steam for some of the interventionists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Well it could just be a "NATO launching cruise missiles at Iraq in the 90s" style strike, one that could be pulled off in a relatively short amount of time This would be the best bet really. The US is highly unlikely to go it alone on a major intervention and you'd expect to see some sort of coalition forming if it were more than lobbing cruise missiles. Keep an eye on any targets hit though. Targetting anti-air sites although unlikely would be an indicator of planning for a larger roll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
farraday posted:This would be the best bet really. The US is highly unlikely to go it alone on a major intervention and you'd expect to see some sort of coalition forming if it were more than lobbing cruise missiles. I don't know if hitting anti air sites is necessarily an indicator that future strikes will happen. I think it would be a good idea though, if you're hitting Syria and taking the international heat for it (by Russia and China etc) you might as well kill 2 birds with one stone and take out their AA too especially the more advanced stuff as more of "just in case" measure if further strikes happen that involve aircraft. Not to mention it makes it safer for Israel if they decide to bomb again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:25
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Jeez what happened to the days where you keep things secret so your enemy won't know when you're going to attack. They'll strike tonight. As we speak, Bill Richardson and the Kenyan replacements for SEAL Team Six await paradrop insertion into the heart of Syria.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
This isn't the place to complain about the cost of military operations, and I realize that the price of munitions is dwarfed by the logistical costs involved in moving a missile launcher to the theater in the first place, BUT: A single tactical tomahawk cruise missile costs something like $1.45 Million. That's a lot of dough for one explosion. It just seems so weird to me that we're essentially blowing up millions of dollars each launch. Something about watching a missile explode makes the dollar cost more real to me than the gradual construction of air craft carriers and stealth fighters. Compare that to the cost of equipping death squads with AK rifles and some machine guns on pickup trucks; asymmetrical warfare indeed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Back in the 90s we launched those missiles at what turned out to be empty tents in Afghanistan. If the cruise missile strikes do go off, I just hope the intended targets. I still remember the accidental strike on the Chinese embassy back during the Yugoslav wars 
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:This isn't the place to complain about the cost of military operations, and I realize that the price of munitions is dwarfed by the logistical costs involved in moving a missile launcher to the theater in the first place, BUT: Yeah, but those guerrillas with AKs and technicals ain't getting anywhere close enough to stop the chemical attacks. Cruise missiles can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Is it viable to shoot the Syrian chemical weapon stockpiles with Tomahawks (presuming they haven't been moved)? Or will that just make a big chemical death cloud?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
Torpor posted:Is it viable to shoot the Syrian chemical weapon stockpiles with Tomahawks (presuming they haven't been moved)? Or will that just make a big chemical death cloud? A lot of the chemicals exist as parts that need to be combined a few hours before they're deployed or they'll decompose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Yeah, but those guerrillas with AKs and technicals ain't getting anywhere close enough to stop the chemical attacks. Cruise missiles can. I'm not sure why you believe cruise missiles are going to stop chemical attacks. I highly doubt the US knows the location of every stockpile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I don't know if hitting anti air sites is necessarily an indicator that future strikes will happen. I think it would be a good idea though, if you're hitting Syria and taking the international hit for it (by Russia and China etc) you might as well kill 2 birds with one stone and take out their AA too especially the more advanced stuff as more of "just in case" measure if further strikes happen that involve aircraft. Not to mention it makes it safer for Israel if they decide to bomb again. I disagree. If the US acts on its own here, although obviously with Tacit NATO support, it's going to want to stress the limited nature of it's engagement and not push the envelope. That means a smaller strike that can claim to be (gently caress my life) "proportional" to a Chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds. Part of that is making sure they get the biggest bang for their buck as it were and hitting anti air sites isn't likely to do that. Directly attacking chemical storage is also risky. If I were a betting man I'd put money on a command and control strike. We're I forced to pick I'd go with the plan to hit the air force intelligence directorate HQs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Yeah, but those guerrillas with AKs and technicals ain't getting anywhere close enough to stop the chemical attacks. Cruise missiles can. Yea, the simple fact is one very expensive missile can go further and be much more precise than a bunch of rebels who, mainly, before this were Joe the Dude Who Sold Fruit at the Market. Plus like said, we're a step up from last time we missile struck a country in that region and just shot at random tents. So, ya know, progress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Here is CBS' report tonight on cruise missile strikes. It makes mention of command bunkers and chemical weapon launchers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
They may have just floated the twitter message to see what they can rustle up. If you're a Syrian Army commander with a chemical weapon stockpile you'll probably be frantically loading that poo poo into trucks, which is likely visible to whatever we have watching them. It isn't like the FSA are the only people with Twitter. Not to mention knowing where the chem strikes may have come from, if they see poo poo hauling rear end from that mountain then the US imagery analysts will know what's happening and can plan accordingly for hitting the trucks on the road. Or maybe they'll blast some fuel depots and (conventional) artillery firebases to take the pressure off the FSA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:They may have just floated the twitter message to see what they can rustle up. If you're a Syrian Army commander with a chemical weapon stockpile you'll probably be frantically loading that poo poo into trucks, which is likely visible to whatever we have watching them. It isn't like the FSA are the only people with Twitter. Which the Syrian regime is probably also thinking. So they're stuck between removing the chemical weapons from likely targets and staying put to try and keep the US in the dark. Who reacts in what way will be a good indicator of how fragmented the Syrian chain of command is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:This isn't the place to complain about the cost of military operations, and I realize that the price of munitions is dwarfed by the logistical costs involved in moving a missile launcher to the theater in the first place, BUT: It's cheaper compared to the costs of possibly losing a few helicopters and an entire special forces team, or the costs of landing a brigade of Marines to do this stuff instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:It's cheaper compared to the costs of possibly losing a few helicopters and an entire special forces team, or the costs of landing a brigade of Marines to do this stuff instead. Plus it's not like the missiles are used to blow up random tanks, they mainly used to take out heavily defended targets such as command centers and other important support buildings. Flying fast and low makes them really really hard to shoot down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Is anyone of consequence actually advocating for significant US involvement other than air strikes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
I wonder if the US would dare enlist Israel to spearhead a joint invasion with Turkey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
Isn't the $1.4M tomahawk the one with the tactical poo poo that uses sensor data from the field and can loiter around until the target better presents itself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Wall Street Journal's national security correspondent says the decision to move ships closer to Syria was made by a naval commander, not the White Housequote:Navy fleet commander decided on own to move two ships into E Med as "prudent preparation" for possible decision to strike Syria - official https://twitter.com/adamentous
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I wonder if the US would dare enlist Israel to spearhead a joint invasion with Turkey. There's zero chance of Israel taking part. None whatsoever. At all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:Welp It's like Bush never left office.  Also doing this would surely require congressional approval right? Missile strikes on another government's armed forces is a pretty clear act of war. Vladimir Putin posted:Jeez what happened to the days where you keep things secret so your enemy won't know when you're going to attack. You mean other than to hope the potential target sees the statement and capitulates in some way as to avoid being attacked? Or doing so could just piss off Assad and he'd decided "gently caress it, send some of this poo poo to jihadis that want to hit US/Israeli/Turkish assets."
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Also doing this would surely require congressional approval right? Missile strikes on another government's armed forces is a pretty clear act of war. It sure wasn't required for Libya.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:I wonder if the US would dare enlist Israel to spearhead a joint invasion with Turkey. Oh gently caress no. Unless Assad starts gassing everyone or Al-Nusra seizes Damascus or something, the US is not going to have boots on the ground while Obama is president. Also, Israel invading anywhere would so inflame, well, everybody in terms of sectarian conflict that it would be self defeating. As far as Turkey goes, I don't know if Erdogan has that much clout with the military, despite his crackdown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:There's zero chance of Israel taking part. None whatsoever. At all. An invasion is one thing, but Israel has already bombed Hezbollah in Syria. Doesn't seem like much of a reach to think that they'd be involved in any kind of bombing campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Everyone who becomes president pretty much instantly decides the War Powers Act doesn't apply to them, even if they criticized executive initiated wars in the past. It's one of the dark powers of the office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
New Division posted:Everyone who becomes president pretty much instantly decides the War Powers Act doesn't apply to them, even if they criticized executive initiated wars in the past. It's one of the dark powers of the office. Well, it basically doesn't apply because any attempt to enforce it would probably end with it destroyed in court. It's all around not quite thought out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:Well, it basically doesn't apply because any attempt to enforce it would probably end with it destroyed in court. It's all around not quite thought out. Yeah, it really is one branch trying to dick over another branch and the Separation of Powers. Though the Courts really don't want to touch it and in Campbell vs Clinton used the NJPolitical matter to ignore it. That said one Congressmen did try and impeach Reagan over Grenada. Which honestly is all Congress can do besides cut funding...and honestly that's questionable since the President can get the money from other places, and no would ever actually let a funding cut off for an active war zone get passed (Sequestration notwithstanding).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2013 02:06
|
|