Posted on 04/07/2017 3:23:43 PM PDT by springwater13
The Pentagon says the highly-accurate satellite guided missiles, launched from two ships in the Mediterranean sea, hit every target with pinpoint precision.
It took launching 61 missiles total to put 59 on target. One missile failed, and another had to be aborted. In both cases another missile was launched to take its place.
The Pentagon released imagery that shows hardened shelters were no match for the cruise missiles. Each of the targeted shelters had a hole in the top, and charred airplane wreckage scattered nearby.
The U.S. is still doing a more complete assessment, but estimates 20 Syrian warplanes were destroyed either in bunkers or in the clear.
In addition, a Russian-made surface-to-air missile site and its associated radar was destroyed, essentially rendering the airfield unprotected against a future attack, at least in the short term.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
“The ride was fun while it lasted. Now can’t wait until the end of this administration.”
You’ll be waiting a long time. Better find another place to post while you are waiting.
That was an important part of the message.
The larger message was that enemies of the U.S. really shouldn't violate international norms, or threaten American interests. If they do, bad things may happen to them.
Hopefully dictators around the world will change their behavior so that their interactions with the U.S. will be free of difficulty.
Non-binary chemical weapons are no fun to be around on any battlefield. Lots of bit of metal flying around that could release the agent on YOU!
Never under-estimate your enemy.
I suggest discretion in so quickly assigning blame on who may have may been responsible for rhe chemical attack, based on recent history.
“Simply put, Soviet engineers designed planes that were meant to be used more roughly than American ones. At its height, the U.S.S.R’s territory covered over 8 million square miles (versus the U.S. at 3.8 million), much of it undeveloped and without proper landing strips. With that in mind, Soviet engineers designed aircraft meant for rougher landings. For instance, the Ilyushin Il-76 cargo plane was explicitly designed to take off and land on unpaved runways. While the Flanker was never meant to land on a rough patch of grass somewhere in the taiga, it was designed to be able to use “austere” runways and take a licking and keep on ticking.”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a18021/su-27-landing-no-landing-gear-video/
“DJT is dead to me. If I wanted this, I would support Hillary.”
Who cares what some liberal Canadian like you thinks.
“Wow, Sam Gamgee, when they wake up the mole, they really wake him up! “
Sam the Canadian Ham said on October 21st that he gave Trump “a 28% chance of winning”.
Such an intelligent winner that Sam.
Depends on the SAM. Depends if it was manned at all. Not all Syrian SAMs have any 'capability' against cruise missiles. We told them we were coming, I suspect they took that time to GTFO.
No disagreement. Iran/Iraq war comes to mind. Two moral, conscientious belligerents going at it. I'm sure troop safety was paramount. Old story of a guy sending his boys in after equipment following a 'sarin' attack. Unfortunately arty shot tabun instead.
What would Frodo had done without him?
Not so much. Assad has targeted other groups more. Ditto for Russia. The US (with the Kurds and THEIR allies, on the ground) is doing most of the damage to ISIS.
One has to remember this is a 5 way fight, at least.
Good Lord, where do I start? (Again.)
Syria’s chemical weapons would not all be at one site, and if we knew where all were, we could have embarrassed the Russki’s into making Assad turn them over, for destruction (that was part of the deal back in 2013, if I recall the year correctly).
No way WE know where all chem weapons might be. That’s part of the problem. Given the people on the ground, our intelligence in a loosely or rebel controlled area might be pretty good. Areas under firm control of Assad or the Russians would likely be much tougher.
Go research Sarin. (The Russians are counting on ignorance.) It breaks down fairly quickly, so to stockpile it, it is commonly kept as two “precursor” chemicals, that are more stable. These are sometimes mixed in the warhead on its way to the target, or sometimes mixed just before firing / launching. Blowing up the warhead prematurely causes a poor mix with relatively little effective Sarin released. It’s somewhat like blowing up a cup each of “A” and “B” component epoxy, sitting side by side, with a grenade — good luck on getting much good adhesive out of that.
The intent was not to blow up any chem weapons, anyway. We want to force the Syrians and Russkies to honor the deal where Assad turned over all the chem weapons for Russia to destroy, and Russia makes sure any more that turn up get the same treatment.
So what’s the real story?
We can hit these penny ante countries no problem, but would we be that superior against Russia and China?
Wasn’t Russian equipment in Syria?
Do they have a good military or no?
I can’t keep up.
Given that it was not ISIS in the area, the timing, and the way Sarin is usually stored / weaponized, Syria is the likely culprit. See also my next post.
That's an interesting point. Responding quickly, sort of "quick justice", sends a more effective message (and gives defenders no time to prepare). But it increases the chance that the intel is flawed. Waiting increases the quality of the intel (or it should), but dilutes the message and increases the defender's ability to defend.
My guess is that once it was clear the Russians would block any UN action, and Trump was about 90% confident on the intel, he gave the order.
That makes sense: Trump's history is that of a shrewd guy willing to take calculated risks. A risk-averse bureaucrat he is not.
Excellent news. Glad our weapon systems continue to work very well. Good tactics by the Military in this mission.
You are correct that I can't even spell the name of that corrupt politician. I was never a supporter of hers. She really disgusts me.
Hillary Clinton made intervention against despots the centre of her foreign policy. It was why she led the attack on Libya. She also gave great credence to the still unproven allegation that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria. In this article, you will see how in 2016 Trump denounces her ambitions for armed strikes on Syria, he says it could lead to a wider war. Unfortunately, he was right at that time, and wrong now.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-27/trump-says-clinton-policy-on-syria-would-lead-to-world-war-three/7969584
A Russian fighter might be in the $10 million range to replace, plus the hardened hangar, equipment, etc.
But, that’s not really the point. The point is that Syria is a signer of the international chem weapons ban (created for damn good reasons), and also with Russian “assistance” agreed to get rid of its chem weapons in 2013, IIRC. Plus we’d just indicated we’d leave Assad in power, and 2 days later his response is yet another chem weapons attack. This just simply could not go unanswered any longer, or every despot in the world would arm up with chem weapons.
No doubt that military equipment is much better but it is more than that — sounds like the Tomahawk is very sophisticated. What they should do is stick a camera on the end of it so that targeting can be changed on the fly. Then again, targeting is probably done from satellites or awac. The question: how accurate is the targeting information — targets move? This is why surprise was so important in Syria.
Also, with the drones flying all over in the states, a terrorist could weaponized one and deliver it with high precision. As you point out, even the lesser precision commercial GPS systems are still adequate. Something to be concerned about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.