malchior wrote:WTF does this even mean?!? We look insane. *Edit: quoted to really point out how crazy this is.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Thursday said a missile attack in Syria ordered by President Trump Thursday isn't a sign of a change in U.S. policy.
"This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for," Tillerson said shortly after Trump launched more than 50 Tomahawk missiles at an airfield in Syria.
"I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today. There has been no change in that status," he added. "I think it does demonstrate that President Trump is willing to act when governments and actors cross the line and cross the line on violating commitments they've made and cross the line in the most heinous of ways."
Could be that it means that taking this action doesn't commit Trump to any long term goals in Syria.
Or maybe he's just trying to keep Syria in the dark because he doesn't "want the enemy to know what [he's] doing".
YellowKing wrote:
Yeah, you summed up my reservations much better than I did. With any other President, I might see this as firm and decisive action in the face of a difficult decision. With Trump, I see it as yet another example of his hair-trigger temper and inability to stay consistent on any position.
It just so happens in this case that most people support the action. But what happens when North Korea says he has a tiny penis and he rains missiles on Pyongyang? It's unfortunate that my default position on Trump is to not trust whatever he does even if I agree with it, but that's the bed he made.
Lots of people will be, justifiably, skeptical of Trump's reaction, because he has a track record of repeatedly blatantly lying. He brought that on himself.
Rip wrote:Who ever told you that is full of it. Shooting down tomahawks if nearly impossible, even iron dome would struggle with it. At best you might get lucky and take down 1 in 10.
Thanks for correcting that! I don't know where they get some of these "experts" - what a joke! I suppose that's what I deserve for getting lazy and posting something without fact checking. Sad that we cannot rely on the media to do it's job. Sad I can't be lazy!
Russia has deployed air defenses in Syria, such as the S-300V4, that are reportedly capable of engaging cruise missiles. The salient point seems to be that they didn't try to intercept them when they have systems in place that are designed to do so, regardless of anyone's opinion of whether or not the defenses would actually be effective.
That's what I thought, but in digging around online in response to RIP's post, it looked like the general consensus was that the tomahawk is VERY difficult to shoot down because of it's low altitude and advanced guidance systems.
It's not hard to shoot it down, it's hard to see it in time to shoot it down. But that's a problem the Russians have been working on for over 30 years, and it would have been very interesting to see them make the attempt. At any rate, the original point wasn't that the Russians didn't shoot down any of the cruise missiles, it's that they didn't make any attempt to do so. I wouldn't take that as a sign of "tacit approval" per se, but the lack of response is still interesting, and saying that it is difficult to intercept a cruise missile doesn't really address the motivation for the Russian inaction.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Rip wrote:Who ever told you that is full of it. Shooting down tomahawks if nearly impossible, even iron dome would struggle with it. At best you might get lucky and take down 1 in 10.
Thanks for correcting that! I don't know where they get some of these "experts" - what a joke! I suppose that's what I deserve for getting lazy and posting something without fact checking. Sad that we cannot rely on the media to do it's job. Sad I can't be lazy!
Russia has deployed air defenses in Syria, such as the S-300V4, that are reportedly capable of engaging cruise missiles. The salient point seems to be that they didn't try to intercept them when they have systems in place that are designed to do so, regardless of anyone's opinion of whether or not the defenses would actually be effective.
That's what I thought, but in digging around online in response to RIP's post, it looked like the general consensus was that the tomahawk is VERY difficult to shoot down because of it's low altitude and advanced guidance systems.
It's not hard to shoot it down, it's hard to see it in time to shoot it down. But that's a problem the Russians have been working on for over 30 years, and it would have been very interesting to see them make the attempt. At any rate, the original point wasn't that the Russians didn't shoot down any of the cruise missiles, it's that they didn't make any attempt to do so. I wouldn't take that as a sign of "tacit approval" per se, but the lack of response is still interesting, and saying that it is difficult to intercept a cruise missile doesn't really address the motivation for the Russian inaction.
BTW, the CNN expert I watched who treated Russia's decision not to fire it's anti-air missiles at our Tomahawks as something of significance was Matthew Chance, CNN's senior international correspondent based in Moscow:
The airstrikes "are an immensely dangerous episode in the relationship between Russia and the United States, not least because they potentially bring into contact Russian forces who are on the ground in Syria and the US forces," Matthew Chance, CNN's senior international correspondent based in Moscow, said.
Russia was warned of the attack before it took place, in accordance with deconfliction policies between the US and Russia over military activities in Syria.
Nevertheless, Chance pointed out, Russia did not choose to use surface-to-air missiles systems in place in Syria that are "fully capable of intercepting cruise missiles if they so choose to."
"(This) implies a degree of tacit Russian consent to the strikes," Chance said.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
If it was implicit consent to the attack - why did they is the real money question. Putin likes to have the US as a foil for domestic political reasons? Is Putin helping out a backchannel ally who is flagging in the polls and needs a win? It helps cement Syrian dependence on Russia/Iran? All of the above?
malchior wrote:WTF does this even mean?!? We look insane. *Edit: quoted to really point out how crazy this is.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Thursday said a missile attack in Syria ordered by President Trump Thursday isn't a sign of a change in U.S. policy.
"This clearly indicates the president is willing to take decisive action when called for," Tillerson said shortly after Trump launched more than 50 Tomahawk missiles at an airfield in Syria.
"I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or posture relative to our military activities in Syria today. There has been no change in that status," he added. "I think it does demonstrate that President Trump is willing to act when governments and actors cross the line and cross the line on violating commitments they've made and cross the line in the most heinous of ways."
Taking the quote on its face, my hunch is that Tillerson is trying to say that they still support the Syrians taking care of their own shit, but that if Assad uses chemical weapons again, we'll respond with force. It doesn't mean the US wants to get anymore directly involved than that - just keep the chemical weapons out of play, and you can do what you want.
It's not a completely irrational approach, and could be considered sensible coming from any other administration. With this administration, though, I expect there will be multiple statements from multiple players that are at least somewhat contradictory, and no one will be 100% sure what the US strategy is (including Trump).
Fully agree. But, I think it is also clear that one salvo of missiles against a air base that was empty of equipment, planes, and personnel because the US tipped off the Russians (who were at the base where the nerve gas attack launched) who obviously tipped of the Syrians is enough.
At first I was happy because again those videos are horrible. But now if this is where Donny stops then it really just is a slap on the wrist against Assad's regime. Part of me can't help thinking this situation was orchestrated but I can't believe people are that inhuman.
I also wouldn't read the Russian's failure to try to stop the attack as implicit consent. While that's one scenario, it's also possible that they didn't think the fallout from attempting to do block the US attempt was worth it. That doesn't mean they liked it or approved of it, though. Another possibility is that they knew that their air defense capabilities were insufficient to do much against the Tomahawks, and they didn't want to expose that. Worse than appearing to tacitly approve the attacks would be objecting with flaccid force.
ImLawBoy wrote:Taking the quote on its face, my hunch is that Tillerson is trying to say that they still support the Syrians taking care of their own shit, but that if Assad uses chemical weapons again, we'll respond with force. It doesn't mean the US wants to get anymore directly involved than that - just keep the chemical weapons out of play, and you can do what you want.
That was my take too but the craziness IMO is that the Sec. of State makes less than clear policy statements and that is especially not great when it concerns military usage that just happened. That is hand in hand with what you cover below.
It's not a completely irrational approach, and could be considered sensible coming from any other administration. With this administration, though, I expect there will be multiple statements from multiple players that are at least somewhat contradictory, and no one will be 100% sure what the US strategy is (including Trump).
We have to have known from the start the Russians would inform Assad's military of the planned strike. This was theater.
Of course if Assad becomes an international liability, we might even see Putin remove him through an orchestrated coup. He'll be replaced by another Russian client, but it will give Putin and Trump to claim victory.
Fully agree. But, I think it is also clear that one salvo of missiles against a air base that was empty of equipment, planes, and personnel because the US tipped off the Russians (who were at the base where the nerve gas attack launched) who obviously tipped of the Syrians is enough.
At first I was happy because again those videos are horrible. But now if this is where Donny stops then it really just is a slap on the wrist against Assad's regime. Part of me can't help thinking this situation was orchestrated but I can't believe people are that inhuman.
How does an empty base attack end up killing sixteen people and destroying twenty planes?
ImLawBoy wrote:I also wouldn't read the Russian's failure to try to stop the attack as implicit consent. While that's one scenario, it's also possible that they didn't think the fallout from attempting to do block the US attempt was worth it. That doesn't mean they liked it or approved of it, though. Another possibility is that they knew that their air defense capabilities were insufficient to do much against the Tomahawks, and they didn't want to expose that. Worse than appearing to tacitly approve the attacks would be objecting with flaccid force.
Rip wrote:How does an empty base attack end up killing sixteen people and destroying twenty planes?
That's what we're saying, but the Russian media is reporting things a bit differently and suggesting only 23 rockets hit the base and that 9 civilians - including 4 children were killed.
So I guess we're engaged in a propaganda war then?
Holman wrote:How do 59 Tomahawks strike a fully functional AF base and kill only 16 people?
Easy hangars and warehouses don't have all that many people around. It isn't a big airbase, it only has two runways. Not like they were targeting barracks and lunch halls. The targets were equipment and infrastructure. If they wanted to kill a lot of people they would have also launched the chemical weapons storage attack. They wisely elected not to. Wasn't about seeing how many soldiers you could kill.
There were no guards, crew, or personnel anywhere near these high-value weapons and radar and communications targets? We took out the HQ while everyone was on a smoke break a mile away?
Is anyone concerned that Russian military personnel were at the same airbase where chemical weapons (WMDs) were storied and then armed on Russian made planes sent to attack civilians?
The 23 missiles claim sounds far-fetched and comes from an unreliable source. Tomahawks also don't crater runways. It is also likely the Syrians got tipped and at least evacuated personnel. It wouldn't be a leap to think the Russians would do that for their client.
malchior wrote:The 23 missiles claim sounds far-fetched and comes from an unreliable source. Tomahawks also don't crater runways. It is also likely the Syrians got tipped and at least evacuated personnel. It wouldn't be a leap to think the Russians would do that for their client.
Its obvious the planes got moved. Probably into Iran. Its also obvious any planes destroyed were probably not airworthy.
Holman wrote:There were no guards, crew, or personnel anywhere near these high-value weapons and radar and communications targets? We took out the HQ while everyone was on a smoke break a mile away?
Even Tomahawks don't just appear out of nowhere. It only takes a minute or two to sound a raid warning and have people seek shelter. They aren't that stealthy so you will see them on radar but not with enough time to move planes and such. Running for a bomb shelter doesn't take so long.
Even once they start striking it isn't all at once. They ripple in so when the first one or two hit everyone else runs for cover. For that many it was probably a good 15 minutes between the first one hitting and the last one hitting.
malchior wrote:The 23 missiles claim sounds far-fetched and comes from an unreliable source. Tomahawks also don't crater runways. It is also likely the Syrians got tipped and at least evacuated personnel. It wouldn't be a leap to think the Russians would do that for their client.
I've never ordered a military strike against another nation, so I'm just making comments based on what is being reported here, but I'm thinking that if you wanted to disrupt someone's ability to use planes to drop chemical munitions you might look to damage the very infrastructure they use to take off and/or land.
malchior wrote:The 23 missiles claim sounds far-fetched and comes from an unreliable source. Tomahawks also don't crater runways. It is also likely the Syrians got tipped and at least evacuated personnel. It wouldn't be a leap to think the Russians would do that for their client.
Its obvious the planes got moved. Probably into Iran. Its also obvious any planes destroyed were probably not airworthy.
Baloney. If they were moved we would know it. Any planes that left before they were hit are well known to the military leaders. I'd bet any amount of money that at most they may have been able to move half a dozen planes and even that is a stretch.
Holman wrote:There were no guards, crew, or personnel anywhere near these high-value weapons and radar and communications targets? We took out the HQ while everyone was on a smoke break a mile away?
Even Tomahawks don't just appear out of nowhere. It only takes a minute or two to sound a raid warning and have people seek shelter. They aren't that stealthy so you will see them on radar but not with enough time to move planes and such. Running for a bomb shelter doesn't take so long.
Even once they start striking it isn't all at once. They ripple in so when the first one or two hit everyone else runs for cover. For that many it was probably a good 15 minutes between the first one hitting and the last one hitting.
malchior wrote:The 23 missiles claim sounds far-fetched and comes from an unreliable source. Tomahawks also don't crater runways. It is also likely the Syrians got tipped and at least evacuated personnel. It wouldn't be a leap to think the Russians would do that for their client.
I've never ordered a military strike against another nation, so I'm just making comments based on what is being reported here, but I'm thinking that if you wanted to disrupt someone's ability to use planes to drop chemical munitions you might look to damage the very infrastructure they use to take off and/or land.
Fair but not a capability of a tomahawk - likely required an aircraft and maybe they weren't willing to take that risk. Also possible this is kabuki but who knows with these clowns.
Holman wrote:There were no guards, crew, or personnel anywhere near these high-value weapons and radar and communications targets? We took out the HQ while everyone was on a smoke break a mile away?
Even Tomahawks don't just appear out of nowhere. It only takes a minute or two to sound a raid warning and have people seek shelter. They aren't that stealthy so you will see them on radar but not with enough time to move planes and such. Running for a bomb shelter doesn't take so long.
Even once they start striking it isn't all at once. They ripple in so when the first one or two hit everyone else runs for cover. For that many it was probably a good 15 minutes between the first one hitting and the last one hitting.
So it was a massive, decisive show of force that sent the strongest possible message while doing basically no damage, hurting almost no one, and failing even to dent the runway?
I'll have to take your word for it. If I squint that hard, it might break my glasses.
Focusing on the runway is folly - they literally take hours to repair. There is a lot to question here but the effect on target without actual intel is pretty pointless. Parties in the know: The US military, Russians, Syrians, maybe Iran. And none of them will give us the real story.
ImLawBoy wrote:I also wouldn't read the Russian's failure to try to stop the attack as implicit consent. While that's one scenario, it's also possible that they didn't think the fallout from attempting to do block the US attempt was worth it. That doesn't mean they liked it or approved of it, though. Another possibility is that they knew that their air defense capabilities were insufficient to do much against the Tomahawks, and they didn't want to expose that. Worse than appearing to tacitly approve the attacks would be objecting with flaccid force.
There is the answer.
Maybe they just can't afford the cost of replenishing the munitions.
"What? What?What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
Ugh. The Putin/Trump nonsense could make anyone a conspiracy theorist. I'm constantly having to check my first thoughts when these things crop up (my first instinct on this one was that it created a very public conflict between Trump and Putin without any significant real-world impact at a time when the connection between Trump and Putin was under scrutiny.)
Honestly that is a legit concern and that could be cleared up by an independent investigation that certain parties do not want to let happen. This is the consequence of operating in the shadows and lying. The President requires credibility - especially on days like this. It is his own damn fault.
Holman wrote:There were no guards, crew, or personnel anywhere near these high-value weapons and radar and communications targets? We took out the HQ while everyone was on a smoke break a mile away?
Even Tomahawks don't just appear out of nowhere. It only takes a minute or two to sound a raid warning and have people seek shelter. They aren't that stealthy so you will see them on radar but not with enough time to move planes and such. Running for a bomb shelter doesn't take so long.
Even once they start striking it isn't all at once. They ripple in so when the first one or two hit everyone else runs for cover. For that many it was probably a good 15 minutes between the first one hitting and the last one hitting.
When you are talking that many Tomahawks in such a small area having them arrive at the same time isn't ideal. ToT is about hitting spread out targets at the same time.
malchior wrote:Honestly that is a legit concern and that could be cleared up by an independent investigation that certain parties do not want to let happen. This is the consequence of operating in the shadows and lying. The President requires credibility - especially on days like this. It is his own damn fault.
I'm not going to pretend to know is this was a good or a bad decision but I do think there is no credibility, no trust.
You can't make 59 Tomahawks hit the same small area at exactly the same time. It simply isn't within the operational guidelines. It isn't like I am just guessing, I have slept beside Tomahawks, helped plan target and firing order of targets.
You can't put 59 Tomahawks on targets in the same 3sq mile or so area at the same moment. Even if you launched every one from a different platform. The only way you put that many strikes in the same very small area is with aircraft.
My only concerns about this are the erratic nature of Trump's foreign policy, which seems to be make 180 degree swings with little warning, and the fact that this stretches the 2002 AUMF beyond the breaking point. Congress needs to debate and vote on a new AUMF immediately. They should have voted on one when Obama asked them to in 2013.
Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:17 am
Zarathud: The sad thing is that Barak Obama is a very intelligent and articulate person, even when you disagree with his views it's clear that he's very thoughtful. I would have loved to see Obama in a real debate.
Me: Wait 12 years, when he runs for president. :-)
Rip wrote:You can't make 59 Tomahawks hit the same small area at exactly the same time. It simply isn't within the operational guidelines. It isn't like I am just guessing, I have slept beside Tomahawks, helped plan target and firing order of targets.
You can't put 59 Tomahawks on targets in the same 3sq mile or so area at the same moment. Even if you launched every one from a different platform. The only way you put that many strikes in the same very small area is with aircraft.
Providence has earned three Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals, four Navy Expeditionary Medals, six Meritorious Unit Commendations, four Navy Unit Commendations and six Battle E awards and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Performance awards include the Tomahawk Strike Derby in 1988, with a 5-second time on target; winner of the 2008 Arleigh Burke Award for battle efficiency and the 2008 Submarine Squadron 2 Battle Efficiency Award.
