Iraq and ISIS Discussion

[Marauder06]

"point" Hilary...
aka: "well played Ms. Clinton, well played...."

On political level, I'm not sure we should be caring about Syrians or their babies. It's not our job to protect them, to avenge them, or to offer them sanctuary.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

On political level, I'm not sure we should be caring about Syrians or their babies. It's not our job to protect them, to avenge them, or to offer them sanctuary.

Agreed. What I meant is that it was a beautifully written way for for her to support the action, but still jab him on immigration and keep her base happy.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Let's Get Mad...yeah:

I don't know who Evan McMullin is, he's an idiot.

 

[kb2012]

Evan McMullin is a prior CIA guy who decided to run for President as an independent. He's Mormon and ended up splitting Utah (I believe) pretty heavily but had pretty much 0 support elsewhere.

 

[CDG]

We probably spent more blowing that airfield up than the Syrians spent to build it.

Yep. Tomahawks run close to $1.5 million apiece. Carry the 1........ $88.5 million, roughly, just for the missiles.

 

[Viper1]

Let's Get Mad...yeah:

I don't know who Evan McMullin is, he's an idiot.

Why do you think so? Do you disagree with his Presidential campaign platform or just his statements during Maher's show?

McMullin was an intriguing 3rd party candidate. I disagree with certain things in his platform (deference to states rights on many issues) but by and large supported many of his policies, including his foreign policy views. I'd like to see his campaign and party gain traction.

 

[ThunderHorse]

I have no idea who he is besides what is on his wiki page. He was not an intriguing candidate because he wasn't on the ballot in most places. Again, I only found out about him because of the show. I completely disagree with his remarks.

 

[Kraut783]

Yep. Tomahawks run close to $1.5 million apiece. Carry the 1........ $88.5 million, roughly, just for the missiles.

But, already paid for munitions.

 

[CDG]

But, already paid for munitions.

True. But expended missiles have to be replaced.

 

[Marauder06]

Was probably time to rotate the stock anyway.

 

[DA SWO]

We might be the only country in the world capable of shutting down an airport because of a lost bag, but incapable of shutting one down with 59 cruise missiles.

I don't think the desire was to shut down the airport, just hit facilities. I haven't seen (and probably won't) any good bDA data. Hitting the fuel tanks and weapons storage areas shuts and airfield down longer than hitting runways and taxiways.

^^^That's funny...and sad at the same time...

But I believe the intention here was more of a shot across the bow as opposed to a rain of death and destruction. A very sensible and shrewd man named Mattis was charged with coming up with the option list, and I could see him recommending this particular course of action. Minimal damage, very few casualties, a tip-off to the Russians (and hence to the Syrians), and no danger to American lives and assets.

The message being: "Right now you're getting a fireworks show...the next time we put one right up your ass."

30 min warning and Russia's S-400 system hit how many missiles?
Either the system sucks, or Putin said stand down.

 

[RackMaster]

I don't think the desire was to shut down the airport, just hit facilities. I haven't seen (and probably won't) any good bDA data. Hitting the fuel tanks and weapons storage areas shuts and airfield down longer than hitting runways and taxiways.



30 min warning and Russia's S-400 system hit how many missiles?
Either the system sucks, or Putin said stand down.

Can't find it now but some RT hit piece today said only 23 missiles hit targets. pretty good odds if you ask me.

 

[DA SWO]

Can't find it now but some RT hit piece today said only 23 missiles hit targets. pretty good odds if you ask me.

How did they determine 29?
Back in ancient times (Gulf War) we use to put two warheads into the same spot, so you could have a hard time counting divots if we still do that.

 

[RackMaster]

How did they determine 29?
Back in ancient times (Gulf War) we use to put two warheads into the same spot, so you could have a hard time counting divots if we still do that.

Magic? It was a Russia propaganda piece.

 

[Gunz]

...30 min warning and Russia's S-400 system hit how many missiles?
Either the system sucks, or Putin said stand down.

I think the latter.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

I think the latter.

Agree, agree, a thousand times agree.

This was hardly a "sneak attack" as Russian and Syria claim.

 

[Gunz]

Agree, agree, a thousand times agree.

This was hardly a "sneak attack" as Russian and Syria claim.

That's just post-event spin to save face. Putin was contacted on the Hotline. He has 30 minutes. What's he gonna do? Declare war? If Putin was our POTUS he would've cluster-bombed the shit out of the airbase and killed half the fucking town along with it.

 

[AWP]

I understand the seriousness of killing a Russian, but considering the actions of the RFAF over Syria and Iraq, I wouldn't shed a tear if we smoked a few.

 

[Il Duce]

I understand the seriousness of killing a Russian, but considering the actions of the RFAF over Syria and Iraq, I wouldn't shed a tear if we smoked a few.

I think the main concern is the Russian sponsored IADS network in Syria. It's not something we want to be dodging while conducting bombing runs on ISIS. Still, I think the most vulnerable aviation is aerial ISR. I've been reading over the source material for the INSCOM 2025 planning - as the command tries to figure out the IWfF structure for the 2025-2040 'mid-term' threats in the Army strategy documents. They say 'near-peer' threat - but of course they mean Russia and China. Anyways, in it the IWfF is still talking about aerial ISR - especially FMV - as though that's going to be all over the place because the 'demand signal' is so high now. I think it's ridiculous because most aerial ISR - but especially FMV - is incredibly vulnerable to modern anti-aircraft technology. The 116th MI BDE and the USAF ought to be shitting their pants over the threat to aerial ISR the IADS in Syria - or even turning loose mobile systems - pose to that fleet. Hopefully if we wake up to the threat now we'll take a different look at how we plan aerial ISR against anyone who is not insurgents with small-arms.

 

[Gunz]

I think the main concern is the Russian sponsored IADS network in Syria. It's not something we want to be dodging while conducting bombing runs on ISIS. Still, I think the most vulnerable aviation is aerial ISR. I've been reading over the source material for the INSCOM 2025 planning - as the command tries to figure out the IWfF structure for the 2025-2040 'mid-term' threats in the Army strategy documents. They say 'near-peer' threat - but of course they mean Russia and China. Anyways, in it the IWfF is still talking about aerial ISR - especially FMV - as though that's going to be all over the place because the 'demand signal' is so high now. I think it's ridiculous because most aerial ISR - but especially FMV - is incredibly vulnerable to modern anti-aircraft technology. The 116th MI BDE and the USAF ought to be shitting their pants over the threat to aerial ISR the IADS in Syria - or even turning loose mobile systems - pose to that fleet. Hopefully if we wake up to the threat now we'll take a different look at how we plan aerial ISR against anyone who is not insurgents with small-arms.

Last time I paid attention to this, only our B2s and F22s had the penetration capabilities to adequately counter the Russian or Chinese IADS. (I don't know about the F-35). And MC-12s conducting aerial ISR wouldn't stand a chance. SEAD/DEAD is going to be a significant challenge with these highly mobile platforms.

And the only reason for the Russians to have installed a sophisticated IADS network in Syria is as a counter to US/Coalition aircraft, a figurative "I gotcha" just in case you guys are planning anything we don't agree with. They face no threat of aerial attack from ISIS.