It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One week and two fourceless shows of force

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
59 tomahawk missiles to one base and it was operational within a day to days.


The airport is operating as a first phase," Homs governor Talal Barazi told Reuters. "Planes have taken off from it," he added, without saying when.


The senior military source, a non-Syrian, said only a few out-of-service jets were destroyed.

cnbc

Now sure, one source was Syrian government but we all know we warned Russia and subsequently Syria, so some steps were taken to mitigate damage.

One week later we use the MOAB on a suspected ISIS tunnel system.

The U.S. military has targeted similar complexes and dropped tens of thousands of bombs in Afghanistan, raising the question of why a bomb of this size was needed Thursday. It was unclear what the GBU-43 strike accomplished, as the bomb is not designed to penetrate hardened targets such as bunkers or cave complexes.

Washington Post

My first thought is why? Why not bunker busters? These large bombs are typically detonated at a predetermined altitude to intensify blast RADIUS.

To me it reeks of a stunt. It will flood the news cycle, something Trump proved to be dominant of doing during his run for president.

Personally I don't buy into the Russian angle.

However my concern is could this be similar wasteful shows of force with diminished returns our administrations have been plauged with since 2001?

Is this a distraction to get other agendas moved through the shadows while the "media" soaks up the rating while they milk these stories?

All I made this post for was to raise these questions and ask everyone keep an eye on future unfolding events. Should these exaggerated shows of force happen regularly I think we should ask why.
edit on 13-4-2017 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I just read on drudge that we may attack NK even if they think they will test a nuke.

Interesting times are coming.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Indeed, though I doubt we'll touch Korea.

It won't benefit us to have a unified Korea. It would ruin the south's economy and take our justification for a South Pacific military buildup.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

They might test that nuke on a u.s. ship?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


My first thought is why? Why not bunker busters? These large bombs are typically detonated at a predetermined altitude to intensify blast RADIUS.


i think you got that backwards, bunker buster are made to penetrate harden or buried underground targets.
edit on 13-4-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'd be the happiest person imaginable if I came to learn that the largest non nuclear bomb ever used by the U.S. military was dropped squarely in the center of Afghanistan's largest opium field and processing facility. ISIS is laughable in comparison to the horrors the fields of Afganistan sheds on the world.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree with what you are saying but so Trump is so unpredictable right now I don't know what's going to happen.
edit on 13-4-2017 by thesaneone because: Damn autocorrect



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Idreamofme

Anything is possible.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Good point.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

They were underground. While they may not have been hardened, and I am no military expert, I still feel one or a few bunker busters penetrating would cause more damage.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Maybe they wanted to test one and see how it would work on caves and tunnels, you know like North Korea is made of.

A show of force while gathering empirical data. Not saying that is why but the possibility is there.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

They were in caves. When MOAB was designed it was planned to use against soft and medium targets, including cave complexes.
edit on 4/13/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I have to say MOAB bomb is probably used against a Godzilla in Afghanistan. Everyone thinks Godzilla came from Japan.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: evc1shop

That's an interesting perspective.

While that's plausible it still doesn't explain the diminished returns of the tomahawk strike on Syria.

I suppose I'll just have to stay skeptical until this all fully transpires.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
59 tomahawk missiles to one base and it was operational within a day to days.


The airport is operating as a first phase," Homs governor Talal Barazi told Reuters. "Planes have taken off from it," he added, without saying when.


The senior military source, a non-Syrian, said only a few out-of-service jets were destroyed.

cnbc

Now sure, one source was Syrian government but we all know we warned Russia and subsequently Syria, so some steps were taken to mitigate damage.

One week later we use the MOAB on a suspected ISIS tunnel system.

The U.S. military has targeted similar complexes and dropped tens of thousands of bombs in Afghanistan, raising the question of why a bomb of this size was needed Thursday. It was unclear what the GBU-43 strike accomplished, as the bomb is not designed to penetrate hardened targets such as bunkers or cave complexes.

Washington Post

My first thought is why? Why not bunker busters? These large bombs are typically detonated at a predetermined altitude to intensify blast RADIUS.



To me it reeks of a stunt. It will flood the news cycle, something Trump proved to be dominant of doing during his run for president.

Personally I don't buy into the Russian angle.

Well, I think you're right about the staging, said as much in another post elsewhere tonight. Just forget about the cost though, since you will find most people don't care if they find the idea has some appeal, not that if it actually works or not. It's all just somebody's desperation, while I'm not even sure if it's Trump himself.

edit on 13-4-2017 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you, that sheds some light on one of my main questions. I'm curious to see the report on damage.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Tomahawks weren't designed to take out runways. They targeted the buildings on the airfield, but unless they used specific runway denial munitions, they wouldn't have taken out the runway with enough damage to deny them use of it.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Im not sure what a show of force would do? Your talking about Assad and KimUn here. You can probably kill them but i highly doubt youre going to intimidate them at all



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That aspect I understood, filling in the runway would have taken very little time.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I am not sure about the missile strikes but it could just be old stock we needed to use up
You know, to keep the military business booming with replenishment orders to the suppliers.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join