OT: US BOMBS SYRIA

[jflores]

Having you on this board helps me feel like I'm not taking crazy pills for thinking essentially the same things. I don't know what causes people to think you can frighten an insane person into acting sane with a couple of airstrikes. You can't fix stupid and you can't cure crazy.

Its war crazy.

I sit around in meetings all the time with smart level headed folks of all political stripes. Then you give us a chance to shoot a thing or two, and it just kind of evolves into "ok cool, we can bomb this and that, we're going to get great results and everyone will respect the flex!" kind of a deal.

Then you have to sit back and realize, in all the time we are not shooting at somebody, there's a whole bunch of history we learn as to what the real limits of power are, and they don't necessarily line up with the talking points by former Lt Colonel's on XYZ news show or political speeches or whatever as to why this newest war, is the best thing since sliced bread.

Its hard to maintain that balance.

Look at the declassified 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. We had to *invade* Iraq (literally next door) to get their attention and get a *temporary* halt on weapons research. The lesson for KJU is yes, there's a guy willing to pull the trigger here. But there was also one in 2001 when you were put on the Axis of Evil. You actually have nukes still, and 'Murica doesn't tend to mess with countries with nukes.

KJU was not wrong when he noted that the lessons from American history dictate that his nation choose nuclear armament if they wish to poke us in the eye. The echoes of Gadaffi and Saddam are still to recent too have gone away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04itext.html

 

[jflores]

The hand wringing over antagonizing Putin has me wondering if maybe Putin isn't all that upset about us taking out the chemical weapon delivery capacity at that base. Everyone is assuming that every strike Assad's military carries out is endorsed by Putin and I don't think that is necessarily accurate. Putin might not have exactly been happy about Assad's men using chemical weapons knowing the international concern that would cause. I guarantee you that Putin didn't want his guys to shoot down that UPS plane in the Ukraine but he covered their butts for them when it did happen.

Now that its been out in the news...

Putin understands "degrade" as a US objective. It may well have been light punishment if he did know about the chem attack before it happened.

We left the runway alone. McMaster said we intentionally didn't bomb the known sarin storage. Not all of the planes were fried.

Signaling. Posturing. Messaging. Every last ounce of it.

 

[TheBeav815]

Its war crazy.

I sit around in meetings all the time with smart level headed folks of all political stripes. Then you give us a chance to shoot a thing or two, and it just kind of evolves into "ok cool, we can bomb this and that, we're going to get great results and everyone will respect the flex!" kind of a deal.

Then you have to sit back and realize, in all the time we are not shooting at somebody, there's a whole bunch of history we learn as to what the real limits of power are, and they don't necessarily line up with the talking points by former Lt Colonel's on XYZ news show or political speeches or whatever as to why this newest war, is the best thing since sliced bread.

Its hard to maintain that balance.

Look at the declassified 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. We had to *invade* Iraq (literally next door) to get their attention and get a *temporary* halt on weapons research. The lesson for KJU is yes, there's a guy willing to pull the trigger here. But there was also one in 2001 when you were put on the Axis of Evil. You actually have nukes still, and 'Murica doesn't tend to mess with countries with nukes.

KJU was not wrong when he noted that the lessons from American history dictate that his nation choose nuclear armament if they wish to poke us in the eye. The echoes of Gadaffi and Saddam are still to recent too have gone away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04itext.html

And even then, it required US & Israeli sabotage of the Iranian nuclear research program (maybe...probably...definitely if you like it but we're not saying for sure).

What bothers me the most is the notion people bandy about that winning any war you can imagine will be easy. It's like they get all jacked up on old propaganda reels from WWII and feel good about how that island hopping map kept adding more 'merican flags and they forget how many teenage corpses came home in the holds of ships to pay for that.

 

[jflores]

And even then, it required US & Israeli sabotage of the Iranian nuclear research program (maybe...probably...definitely if you like it but we're not saying for sure).

What bothers me the most is the notion people bandy about that winning any war you can imagine will be easy. It's like they get all jacked up on old propaganda reels from WWII and feel good about how that island hopping map kept adding more 'merican flags and they forget how many teenage corpses came home in the holds of ships to pay for that.

At least as pertains to Iran I think the largest discrepancy between the pop media and the 2007 NIE is basically the idea that Iran is hell bent on acquiring nuke weapons as fast as it possibly can and then it will proceed to orgasm in religious fervor as it wipes Israel off the map.

At least one bullet in the Estimate, directly refutes that. Assuming GWB was a friend of Israel, his own policy choices refute that, not giving Israel any greenlight or Grand Alliance to help them out.

 

[TheBeav815]

Now that its been out in the news...

Putin understands "degrade" as a US objective. It may well have been light punishment if he did know about the chem attack before it happened.

We left the runway alone. McMaster said we intentionally didn't bomb the known sarin storage. Not all of the planes were fried.

Signaling. Posturing. Messaging. Every last ounce of it.

I find Jim Wright an interesting follow, I try to mix in a few opinions from people who have military backgrounds. He basically said, "59 f---ing TLAMs without even destroying the runway tells you everything you need to know about whether this was an actual strike or just a dog and pony show to act tough."

I don't happen to know how much stuff you can blow up with 82 million bucks worth of missiles, but I would think at least one whole base's worth of runway should be an easy start. When you consider they could put one on the roof of my car where it's parked out here in the burbs from a ship in Lake Michigan, that tells me they specifically made a choice not to hit any important stuff.

But they had the effect they wanted, even the "lib'rul media" spent a bunch of time going, "Oooooh, wow, very tough! Look how brave with the Russia dealings!"

 

[jflores]

I find Jim Wright an interesting follow, I try to mix in a few opinions from people who have military backgrounds. He basically said, "59 f---ing TLAMs without even destroying the runway tells you everything you need to know about whether this was an actual strike or just a dog and pony show to act tough."

I don't happen to know how much stuff you can blow up with 82 million bucks worth of missiles, but I would think at least one whole base's worth of runway should be an easy start. When you consider they could put one on the roof of my car where it's parked out here in the burbs from a ship in Lake Michigan, that tells me they specifically made a choice not to hit any important stuff.

But they had the effect they wanted, even the "lib'rul media" spent a bunch of time going, "Oooooh, wow, very tough! Look how brave with the Russia dealings!"

I don't know who Jim Wright is.

How much stuff is something of a tricky question.

A TLAM isn't a particularly big BOOM. Its effective because its accurate. Depending on what you want the "effect" to be, you could easily put 2-3-4 warheads into something to be able to be able to achieve your "effect" with a reasonably high Pk (probability of kill).

I think the lay person has little understanding between the size of the BOOM and how much damage you can cause.

Trump's tweet about "you don't shoot runways because its an easy fix" is absolutely true. I'm sure he was advised that several times over coming from the hotel industry (its a line entry in a manual somewhere that shows what reconstitution time is for various elements). To keep a runway out of action, you have to have a sustained campaign against it.

Even if you wanted to destroy everything at an airfield just one time, it would take an insane amount of warheads. 59 going out is not a huge attack, especially if you start paring that down into "two on this target, three on that target".

Edit: The weaponeer's chief problem is often dealing with the customer, and not weaponeering the target. The weaponeer understands exactly the limitation of firepower, and the strength of things being bombed. Most folks, including Task Force commanders and Generals/Admirals/politicians basically equate how much of the building is left with how effective an attack is. Which is a correlation that doesn't exist, to large degree. Especially if your objective as a commander, isn't the building itself. So the weaponeer often finds himself, answering questions of a guy who doesn't know what to ask for.

 

[TheBeav815]

I don't know who Jim Wright is.

How much stuff is something of a tricky question.

A TLAM isn't a particularly big BOOM. Its effective because its accurate. Depending on what you want the "effect" to be, you could easily put 2-3-4 warheads into something to be able to be able to achieve your "effect" with a reasonably high Pk (probability of kill).

I think the lay person has little understanding between the size of the BOOM and how much damage you can cause.

Trump's tweet about "you don't shoot runways because its an easy fix" is absolutely true. I'm sure he was advised that several times over coming from the hotel industry. To keep a runway out of action, you have to have a sustained campaign against it.

Even if you wanted to destroy everything at an airfield just one time, it would take an insane amount of warheads. 59 going out is not a huge attack, especially if you start paring that down into "two on this target, three on that target".

He's former Navy I believe, not sure if he was a SEAL or not. (Edit: Describes himself as a retired US Navy Chief Warrant Officer.) His opinions are rather up my alley in that same vein I've been in this thread of, "What's so liberal about not wanting to start wars first and figure out whether they're winnable second?"

I particularly enjoy him because people like to co-opt the military as justification for one political belief or another. That old, "If you don't think X then you hate the troops so f*** you!" I always enjoy a good, "Well I am the troops and you don't get to tell me what to think."

I enjoy your thoughts on these things, you seem to have a nice, firm commitment to facts. It helps me to form opinions when it would be very easy to find somebody already shouting things that sound agreeable to me.

 

[jflores]

Props to the POTUS for coming out with a clear message on Syria. We're not going in.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...re-not-going-into-syria.html#&_intcmp=hpbt2_2