US assault on Syria just hours away

reply to post by buni11687

Bases in Turkey and Cyprus? I thought this was going to be just a cruise missile strike from the Destroyers in the area? Does this mean air power is now going to be involved?

Where are the destroyers now? I hate to ask to be spoon fed but I’m under my own gun at the moment for time and...

The reason I ask? It would seem to me Egypt will just shut down the Suez Canal (as has been rumored) = Air Strike(s) would be the ways and means at that point (at least I would think) in order to get the ‘limited’ job done without poking Egypt into making those rumors reality. Because of course we all know if the canal ‘closes‘? Gas will go to 8-10 a gallon - or WWIII really will be unavoidable.

As an added note - a little bit of strange?

WWII is acceptable in my word processor.

WWIII is red marked as being incorrect spelling.

I hope it stays that way.

peace

reply to post by silo13

Where are the destroyers now? I hate to ask to be spoon fed but I’m under my own gun at the moment for time and...

The Destroyers are in the eastern Mediterranean (all can hit Syria once the word is given). Last count I read was a total of 5 Destroyers, along with another ship carrying a couple hundred marines.

news.yahoo.com...

The San Antonio transited through the Suez Canal on Thursday from the Red Sea, and received new orders on Friday to remain in the eastern Mediterranean, near the destroyers, according to defense officials. It is one of three ships that are carrying 2,200 Marines who have been on a six-month deployment in the region around the Arabian peninsula.

reply to post by buni11687


Couple hundred marines surely not on the ground troops ? that wasn't in the plan.

I have a question.As the chemical weapons themselves can't be targeted what can possibly be the objectives to be destroyed?

Originally posted by TDawg61
I have a question.As the chemical weapons themselves can't be targeted what can possibly be the objectives to be destroyed?

That question was asked a lot in the debate. No satisfactory responses.

If you attack the weapons the risk of collateral damage is not a good prospect.

If you attack the syrian government and army command and control all you are doing is degrading their ability to control the same weapons.

Now you would possibly pull the Rebels ass out of the fire which is why most rational observers conclude that is the only plausible real aim.

reply to post by TDawg61


Imagine they just nuke the entire country. No more problems!

Originally posted by combatmaster
reply to post by TDawg61

 

Imagine they just nuke the entire country. No more problems!

No more problems? How so? Do you have any idea the cause and effect of that scenario? You are laughing now cause you have no clue what it's like when your loved ones get bombed in front of you on daily basis....go live in Syria for a week, and you won't come out of your basement #ting bricks just hearing rockets and drones hitting your country every day....you won't be laughing then.

Ignorance ugh..

ETA: There is NO joy in human suffering, that's the attitude of a coward.

reply to post by buni11687


It was obvious air power was going to be involved the minute McConnell launched tankers heading that way. You don't launch 18 aircraft for no reason. You may see some strikes out of Turkey, but I'm willing to bet that they will only be SEAD strikes to open the door for B-2s out of Whiteman. The problem with missile strikes is that Tomahawks are slow, and they can be seen on radar. That means if you have a lot of air defenses, which Syria does, you can knock down quite a few of them. So unless we fire enough to saturate their defenses, a lot of them aren't going to get through, which means going back to try again on some targets.

The B-2 on the other hand, can roam around Syria largely immune from defenses. Both B-2s and strikes from Turkey hitting air defenses can open the door for Tomahawks to come through, and the B-2 is capable of launching the JASSM semi-stealthy cruise missile that has a much better chance of reaching its targets.

muse7
Does anyone know if we keep any B-2's in Greece or turkey?

Why? That would be crazy to have them that close. They've already proven then can fly out of their home base at Whiteman AFB and hit targets anywhere in the world. It makes more sense to fly out of there and just hit tankers on the way, than having them close enough that any strikes coming back at them could damage or destroy them.

reply to post by deviant300


A couple hundred Marines wouldn't do anything. The San Antonio class occasionally acts as Flagship for task forces. It has some communications and command and control gear that the Arleigh Burke doesn't have on board. Best guess is that it's there as a C3i platform.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

muse7
Does anyone know if we keep any B-2's in Greece or turkey?

Why? That would be crazy to have them that close. They've already proven then can fly out of their home base at Whiteman AFB and hit targets anywhere in the world. It makes more sense to fly out of there and just hit tankers on the way, than having them close enough that any strikes coming back at them could damage or destroy them.

Wouldn't they fly them out of Guam in order to ensure operational secrecy?

reply to post by clay2 baraka


Well maybe they are? It just they are not telling.

reply to post by clay2 baraka


There are four bases they could fly out of, that you wouldn't know they were launching from. Although they could launch from Whiteman, staggered, and you'd never know they were heading to Syria. The point I was going for though was why put a high value target like a B-2 (of which we only have 19) that close, when Syria has missiles that can range to Cyprus (even if barely). You can fly out of anywhere in the world, and refuel in flight, so no one would know you were coming until it was too late.

reply to post by PurpleVortex


Incompetence on a mass scale sometimes makes me laugh

It is pretty clear that if USA strike, then they strike a few targets and then go back home. I feel there has been an anti-climax of sorts in the call for war and US have no choice but to stand by their word, so nothing serious will occur, unless Syria retaliate or others get involved!

reply to post by PhysicsAlive


you have my humble apologize PhysicAlive,

not based on your topic, but based upon that fact that my dearest brother had in invaded my ATS account.. passwords have been changed and i would like to personally detract all comments made under my name within this post ..


again you have my humble apology..



Muzz

It seems that our leaders believe that violence is an extremely effective way of solving problems. Funny how they raise us to believe the exact opposite.

Somehow, I get the feeling that is the problems in Syria dissolved overnight, they would be very disappointed...

Russian warships in the region and not to mention S-300 missiles , this will be interesting....am pretty sure The warships will give early warning to Assad in case of any attacks ...

reply to post by maddy21


If they were S400s then I'd be nervous. The S300 will work against the Tomahawks, but not nearly as well against stealth systems.

US assault on Syria just hours away

I disagree. We are at least a week away. And the White House has to give it's usual 'you have 48 hours to leave Syria' notice to everyone. They always do that so that foreigners will get out. (anyone still there is stupid and should get a DARWIN award ... but still, it's what happens in these situations).

Nothing will happen until at least September the 9th when Obama/sama would first seek Congress' approval. witch cant happen until the 9th.

Thats the latest.