US launches Tomahawks on Syrian airbases

a reply to: Vector99

Except you haven't: been realistic that is.

Claiming they used the same TLAMs as what was used in the first Gulf War.

Seriously? Realistic?

No. You're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks.

Problem is, you have people like me and others who have actually served and worked on these weapon systems and understand how they change and are upgraded over time, and the maintenance system used for upkeep, and of course, exactly how they operate, including the classified parts of it.

But go on, do tell everyone how our munitions of the US are crap compared to everyone else, keep going.

a reply to: Vector99

You don't fund me in any way lol. I pay a lot in taxes.

Are you saying I don't?

TheRedneck

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I think that people are spinning things. The situation in Syria is complicated. But people are jumping through hoops to make this fit some kind of thing that it is not.

There was proof that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack. The entire world was saying that, not just the US.

Preliminary reports of 6 civilians killed and 12 civilians injured by Tomahawk attack on Shayrat village.

twitter.com...

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Regardless of who is responsible for the gas attack,
How do you fight it?

How many people have to die, as it spreads into Europe and America, personally I am terrified of the chemical weapons being used,

How many innocent women and children have been murdered in the middle east?

Exactly right. Even if it does turn out to be a false flag, the show of force reasserts the Geneva protocol, and at the very least shows to those who might wish to use chemical weapons that civilized society will not tolerate it.

So a chemical attack happens in Syria and within minutes the mainstream media is pointing their fingers at Assad....

Next thing you know, Trump is launching missiles against the Assad regime (a mere 48 hours later before any concrete evidence has surfaced).


Here's the way I see it:

A) Trump just got sucked into a baiting game by isis rebels

or

B) Trump is actually in favour of isis taking over syria and that's why he moved on this so soon



If it turns out that the Assad regime did not chemically attack its own people (the msm has spouted this propaganda before and it turned out to be complete BS), so it's quite possible that the msm is full of sh** yet again...

And if that's the case, then the next question will be:

How exactly is Trump going to backpeddle his way out of yet another one of his premature ejaculations ??



What a fricken sh** show this is.

a reply to: Vector99

Not in Syria we don't.

Offshore we do, but in Syria? No we don't.

We did last night... until they blew up, anyway.

Seriously, offshore is still within range, so whether or not we have missile bases inside arbitrary borders on land is irrelevant. Russia doesn't want us tossing bang-bangs at them, so they don't want to toss bang-bangs at us. The memorandum is just an enumerated mutual promise to do something that makes sense for both sides.

TheRedneck

RE: a reply to: Vector99
a reply to: eriktheawful


OK.... i'm not too current in the Navy logistics nor the Naval make-up of Ships

but I'm reasonably versed on the reported high-tech, anti-aircraft carrier hypersonic missiles the Russians have already in their arsenal

this whole Anti-Assad exercise (chemical weapons used on civilians) can get out of hand very quickly...
but... there is also the possibility that Russia could employ their localized EMP devices to shut-down the electronics on the cruise missile Ships and disrupt the attacks on the Syrian Military airfields...instead of vaporizing the threat





related & most recent news: americanmilitarynews.com... aign=alt&utm_source=quayle

a reply to: CranialSponge

I think we can see thru the BS. They don't care about the babies. It's just business as usual. Who profits?

This isn't a reaction to a gas attack. This was planned a long time ago. More of the same false flags for the fools to suck up. Notice how quick the MSM changed into a cheering section? With video proof?

a reply to: St Udio

Yah, we have lots of ASMs too on board our ships. I know: used to teach them how to use them.

Not too worried right now. Only worried if we actually hit a actual Russian target. Or vice versa.

By the way: our ships are harden against EMPs (another thing I worked on while in the US Navy: weapons and radar systms).

a reply to: eriktheawful

Sorry, they used an upgraded 30 year old missile platform. One that still costs about $800k per missile.

They had about a 39% accuracy rate this round.

We disabled the airbase and destroyed all aircraft according to Syria. The number of aircraft destroyed ranges from 6-14. The deaths on the base are 6. The injuries are not much more. We also had 2 missiles miss target and kill 9 civilians.

If 58/59 missiles hit their target like the pentagon says, why is the airbase not in complete ruins?

A few buildings are gone, a satellite/radar facility is gone, a couple hangars are gone. All the aircraft are apparently gone. The runway isn't usable, but repairable within days. Hangars still remain. Other facilities remain.

THAT is what 59 tomahawk missiles do?

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: AnkhMorpork

I think that people are spinning things. The situation in Syria is complicated. But people are jumping through hoops to make this fit some kind of thing that it is not.

There was proof that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack. The entire world was saying that, not just the US.

Then show me, all I see are accusations not evidence.

All I know is chemical weapons where used, not who delivered them.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm talking about anti-aircraft inside Syria itself.

a reply to: olaru12

I think we can see thru the BS. They don't care about the babies. It's just business as usual. Who profits?

Who profits ?

Isis profits.

And Trump played right into it like the clueless clown that he is.



I need a drink.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Not a lot of presumption on my part. Your responses reek of fear, regardless of what that fear is telling you.

It not "fear". some of us with working brain cells want to be 100% certain it was Assad and to think things through before we get invloved with another middle eastern mess.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
And if that's the case, then the next question will be:

How exactly is Trump going to backpeddle his way out of yet another one of his premature ejaculations ??

I've been surprised by the lack of attention drawn by this whole escapade.

It's like a bad play run by an even worse director.

a reply to: St Udio

There isn't a localized EMP device anywhere. Well.. I won't say that, but there wasn't one deployed. There is cell phone footage of the strikes. Any kind of EMP attack would also fry any and every electronic device in range. AKA no cell phone footage.

Fighting a proxy war with Russian can never end "well". How long will it be before we start fighting Russian troops on the ground in Syria? How long will Russia stand behind Assad.
The Narrative is speaking like Assad himself launched the chemical attack. The question needs to be asked. What would Assad gain from using banned chemical weapons on his own people. Does the world really think him that dumb? And how about this. What does Russia gain by backing someone who if you believe the narrative is using chemical weapons on its own people? Why would Russia risk further sanctions in instigating the west. There is more going on than what is being told. None of this makes sense from a logical stand point. This attack has "False Flag" written all over it. but without any hard evidence it will be considered nothing but a conspiracy theory.

a reply to: eriktheawful

I hope we don't make anything Russian go bye-bye, too. I really don't think there will be any such targeting unless directly provoked.

There has been a lot of mythology arise surrounding EMPs. They're actually pretty easy to defend against. The trunk of a car makes a good EMP barrier, for crying out loud. A few well-placed diodes and resistors (pennies, literally) make a circuit more resistant to EMP damage if anything gets to it. Only unprotected technology is really susceptible.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Vector99

Like talking to a brick wall.

30 year missile platform.

Well damn that Ford someone is driving must be getting close to 100 years old! It's a "Ford" platform.

Would you PLEASE educate yourself? Or go join and LEARN how these things work.

Warhead on these missile: the equivalent of a 1,000 pound bomb. That's small. My own Harpoons had a bigger warhead explosive power.

So: Small type of bomb vs. Very Big Airbase.

Takes quite a few to amass a large amount of damage.

Of course I guess Trump always could have ordered a nuke package instead of the HE warhead, that certainly would have done more damage, but I guess he showed a little bit of restraint there.

Again: Learn, you're really showing your ignorance with each post.