Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say

reply to post by Zaphod58


It reminds me of that scene from Armageddon when they are on the MIR station. You know, the scene where he has to bang on the conduits to make stuff work.

"Russian space station..."

Having followed with some interest the activities in Syria and the alledged use of chemical weapons the following can be stated:

The problem here is that this is not going to be an easy strike, and the US is overstepping its bounds. The first is that there is no way to determine who used chemical weapons in Syria. One side says that the Government did it, the other side says the rebels. Too many countries are all involved in Syria, turning a civil war into a proxy war.

The country is not ready for another military engagement, as it is finally finishing with Iraq and Afganistan. The people are tired and the will is not there. But there is one other aspect that somehow is being ignored.

The civil war in Syria, is a mess to begin with, as there are too many outside influences involved. The Syrian Government is one side, and the Syrian rebles are another. At the same time, it appears as people from different groups are also getting involved.


And it is the people, the very citizens of Syria that are caught in the middle of it, it is they who are suffering and ultimately are going to have to clean up the mess that is created when all is said and done.

This is going to back fire on the US, as the recent uprisings/civil wars have shown. The people raise up the US gets involved, yet without looking at their core values, the US gets involved fully, only to discover that the next group that takes over, are not so friendly to the US policies, or are outright hostile, to the point of being the dog that bites the hand that feeds it. And this is exactly what is happening in Syria.

What needs to happen is that the US needs to go back to the UN Security council and get all of those with Veto power to agree to back out of it and to prevent others from getting involved, letting the people of Syria to deal with it, to offer humanitarian aid, in the way of food and medical supplies.

And here is the problem, if the US goes in with out the UN Security council, then it will give those who oppose the opportunity to use such as precident to do the exact same thing, including taking actions with several others when it is within their interest. And make no mistake, that if the US does this, there may be a chance that Russia or China make take a more militant stance in other parts of the world, to include areas that the US does have more interest. After all what would the US do, if say the Chinese decides to mobalize and keep troops in say North Korea? Or places a blockate around Tiwan, or close to Japan?

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


It was an F-117 actually, it was hit by an SA-6 IIRC. They were on the same route for the second or third night in a row, and he was hit as he released his weapons. The stealths are most vulnerable when the bays are open. If you know where it's going to be, and can have weapons in place (the missile used has optical guidance), and can ambush them then you can bring one down. What's key to note though is that it's the only loss of a stealth aircraft in combat. One other was apparently damaged and the nose gear collapsed on landing, but only one has ever been shot down, and that's the only other one I know of that was even damaged. F-117s flew over 1300 missions in Desert Storm, as well as missions in Operation Southern Watch, Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and Yugoslavia. That's an impressive as hell combat record, no matter how you slice it.

They theoretically could do the same, if they go in over several nights, using the same tracks. What makes this so interesting for a lot of analysts is that this is the first time stealth will go in against modern defenses (S300s). Previously they went in against older systems, so this will be the first true test to some of the systems on board.

reply to post by blupblup


So wanting to do something about it and supporting it is two different things? okay.
what about not going through Congress for approval?

reply to post by muse7



There just waiting for Ally Great Britain to come to Military plans agreement next UK Defence meeting is Thursday.

On Friday, Israel’s Channel 2 reported that the weapons were fired by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, a division under the command of the Syrian president’s brother, Maher Assad. The nerve gas shells were fired from a military base in a mountain range to the west of Damascus, the TV report said.

A large delegation of senior Israeli security officials is currently in Washington holding talks with top administration officials led by US National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

www.timesofisrael.com...

Doesn't it seem like a coincidence this Incident occurred almost exactly one year before the major sarin attack a week ago?

And I just watched the white house rep on CNN talk about how there is 'little doubt' Assad is responsible. Then says "should" be little doubt. What a load of BS spewing out during that press conference. It's pretty frustrating knowing that they know this has nothing to do with Assad yet keep talking smack. Speaking of smack...

reply to post by Zaphod58

Not a B-1 then,my mistake.
But,to be sure they will not use indentical flight paths any longer.
I just hope Syria does not get a few lucky shots off,and raise the level of involvement-but there is that chance.

I can see why Obama has appeared to be hesitant to get involved in this.
Like flyers fan was saying,there are alot of players involved in this,and it could get nasty fast.
May cool heads prevail in the days ahead.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


I would hope not, but they did it in Vietnam and we all thought they had learned their lesson, but they did it again. Hopefully this time they let the B-2 crews plan their own missions instead of micromanaging them like they have done in the past.

I wonder how much this strike will cost America?

Lets narrow it down to the cost of just the weapons.

So what are Russia’s options... stay quiet and lose credability or do something
and show they mean that a line has been drawn..

So what will Russia do?

Option ...s
please fill in the blanks.....

reply to post by rigel4


A limited response, or moving more weapons to the Syrian government. Russia is trying to become a major player again, but they're not up there yet.

reply to post by thesaneone


You can't unless you know specifically what weapons will be used, and the per hour operating cost of any aircraft and ships involved. I heard one estimate though that if they send boots in to secure the chemical facilities you're looking at around a billion a month.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by thesaneone

 

You can't unless you know specifically what weapons will be used, and the per hour operating cost of any aircraft and ships involved. I heard one estimate though that if they send boots in to secure the chemical facilities you're looking at around a billion a month.

Just quick napkin math concerning TLAM's and FastHawks comes out to appox. $65 million dollars in munitions alone for 40 missiles launched. Assume about $1 million per TLAM and $750,000 per FastHawk.

Like Zaphod mentioned, you'd have to know how many targets, munitions used, operating/dwell costs, etc.

Either way, the cost of this... both financially and morally... is NOT worth it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by rigel4

 

A limited response, or moving more weapons to the Syrian government. Russia is trying to become a major player again, but they're not up there yet.

The thing with limited responses from any side ... they very much depend on the other sides co-operation!

A response can only be limited if the other side don't respond again .. bat/ball

reply to post by Deetermined


Ah right, now that isreal have detailed the events........im more convinced it was the rebels.

reply to post by rigel4


In this case, the US and Russia don't appear to want a war with each other, so they would do everything they could to keep any incidents limited.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by rigel4

 

In this case, the US and Russia don't appear to want a war with each other, so they would do everything they could to keep any incidents limited.

I'm really hoping you are right... for my kids sake.

reply to post by rigel4


Well if you look at the incidents during the Cold War, when tensions were highest, and nothing happened, then you'll see that the odds of something huge happening now between the two is probably a lot lower than it was then. The Soviets actually shot down allied aircraft with no reaction from the US or allies.

I watched the news at 19.00 uk time,40 mins ago.
The rhetoric has amplified.
The US Gov will share evidence of chems used by Assad on friday or saturday,so said sky news UK.
So did BBC news UK.
They also both reported the same line that the US military was "Ready to go."

Events are speeding up by the hour.
Not in a good way.