• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump acts against Syria- 49 Tomahawk Missiles strike air force base.

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I demand that Congress immediately raise taxes to pay for this circus. If achieving an objective is worth taking military action then it is certainly worth paying for. Raising the capital gains tax rate by a half percent or so should cover it. Is keeping Assad away from using chemical weapons worth an extra 0.5% tax on millionaires and billionaires?
 
WelshBloke said:
It's a terrible decision if it's made after saying repeatedly that we should stay out of the situation.
This way we have ended up with a pile of dead kids and getting sucked into Syria.

Randomly lashing out after saying that it's none of our business and we should stay out of it comes across more like a drunk in a bar than a statesman.
Click to expand...

For the moment I disagree. Any statements in foreign policy are contingent on circumstances on the ground. Assad was foolishly reassured by Trump that he was no longer under threat by policy. Assad then changed things with a ground attack. Our reaction wasn't to break a bottle and swagger around in a drunken fit, it was a very calculated response, nicely done as these things go IMO. We aren't sucked in, we came, we left. Naturally that doesn't mean this action is not without potential problems, but the object of this exercise is to send that message of "stop, now", not to mount an attack as a prelude to war. Incidentally this has Mattis written all over it.

Perhaps as a bonus, Xi and Trump were meeting while this went on. Xi wouldn't feel intimidated, but I can imagine a President saying "We have been giving a cruel leader the benefit of the doubt for a long time but he persisted in using WMDs. Those who choose to pursue the same course are now on notice. In other words "Reel your dog Kim in". I'll be waiting to see what happens down the road after China processes the situation.
 
Amused said:
Well, well, well. It's beginning to look like this entire incident and response was orchestrated by Putin and Trump to deflect from the Russian scandal.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/eyewitness-syrian-military-anticipated-us-raid/story?id=46641107
Click to expand...


Nothing there says that at all. Possible? Anything is, but there's no basis for it shown. This attack wasn't about killing people and that steps were taken to avoid that as much as possible wasn't some deep secret revealed, it was stated as part of the plan. This won't take anything away from the investigation in any case. That will proceed and Trump will likely have stopped his slide in the polls for the moment. That's not a good enough reason for even a Trump. Think from a strategic perspective. Think like Mattis and his senior staff, not Twitter.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
For the moment I disagree. Any statements in foreign policy are contingent on circumstances on the ground. Assad was foolishly reassured by Trump that he was no longer under threat by policy. Assad then changed things with a ground attack. Our reaction wasn't to break a bottle and swagger around in a drunken fit, it was a very calculated response, nicely done as these things go IMO. We aren't sucked in, we came, we left. Naturally that doesn't mean this action is not without potential problems, but the object of this exercise is to send that message of "stop, now", not to mount an attack as a prelude to war. Incidentally this has Mattis written all over it.

Perhaps as a bonus, Xi and Trump were meeting while this went on. Xi wouldn't feel intimidated, but I can imagine a President saying "We have been giving a cruel leader the benefit of the doubt for a long time but he persisted in using WMDs. Those who choose to pursue the same course are now on notice. In other words "Reel your dog Kim in". I'll be waiting to see what happens down the road after China processes the situation.
Click to expand...

As far as not being sucked in, we'll see. Everything has consequences. According to reports a very similar option was on the table for Obama in 2013 and he decided not to use it. I can only think that it was out of concern about not knowing where such action is headed or what else could happen. It's entirely possible to make a complicated situation progressively worse when the instinct to act is so strong even if it's out of a good place.

Xi isn't going to pile a lot of pressure on somebody they now only have limited influence with unless he gets something of value in return. I presume Trump will have to abandon most of his trade agenda WRT China and promise at least passivity in the SCS in order to secure his active help. The US has not been historically shy about using force over the past couple decades so I doubt the Syria thing figures too much into his calculations.
 
Capt Caveman said:
17522535_10104385676361302_2522081121374606521_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Because circumstances don't change over a period of four years.
 
K1052 said:
As far as not being sucked in, we'll see. Everything has consequences. According to reports a very similar option was on the table for Obama in 2013 and he decided not to use it. I can only think that it was out of concern about not knowing where such action is headed or what else could happen. It's entirely possible to make a complicated situation progressively worse when the instinct to act is so strong even if it's out of a good place.
Click to expand...

Obama decided not to attack Assad because of Kerry. If you recall the latter was attempting to build a base support for military action by saying that it was necessary since Assad would never surrender his chemical weapon capability. Putin says "oh, Assad says he'll agree".

Now there was no "decide not to use it", this was checkmate. The basis for attack was Assad and chemicals weapons. Assad agrees to give them up and Obama says "Oh eff it, let's do it anyway"? Not happening. I'll head off others with the inevitable "yeah but he didn't surrender everything". Of course not, but trying to make a point is the worst form of hindsight. Obama simply could not have known and had to act with what he had. That was NOT his fault.

Consequences? Of course, that's a main point of mine. One does not know where anything will lead, but that is also true with doing nothing. Making these choices is a job no one should envy.
 
5to1baby1in5 said:
1 Tomahawk missile = 1000 lbs. of ordinance.
50+ missiles all launched at the same airbase.
Assume the place was flattened.
Click to expand...
Everything important likely was. Airfields are traditionally very sparsely laid out, and in addition a runway not having much to 'blow up' with traditional munitions. If I were to guess, I'd say that 40% or so were used on the runway, and the rest on buildings. With any luck, they had intel on additional chemical weapons equip and wiped that out as well.

Amused said:
Well, well, well. It's beginning to look like this entire incident and response was orchestrated by Putin and Trump to deflect from the Russian scandal.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/eyewitness-syrian-military-anticipated-us-raid/story?id=46641107
Click to expand...
Quite a jump to conspiracy-theory land. They anticipated the attack because we warned them it was inbound. The intent was to break stuff, not kill people. No collusion required for these events.

EDIT: Oh and for those referencing the cost, remember that these were already purchased and paid for. Presumably some might have to be purchased to replace them, but in all likelihood there's a stockpile of them that it will be replenished from, which may or may not be replaced at a given cost.
 
Last edited:
Hayabusa Rider said:
Obama decided not to attack Assad because of Kerry. If you recall the latter was attempting to build a base support for military action by saying that it was necessary since Assad would never surrender his chemical weapon capability. Putin says "oh, Assad says he'll agree".

Now there was no "decide not to use it", this was checkmate. The basis for attack was Assad and chemicals weapons. Assad agrees to give them up and Obama says "Oh eff it, let's do it anyway"? Not happening. I'll head off others with the inevitable "yeah but he didn't surrender everything". Of course not, but trying to make a point is the worst form of hindsight. Obama simply could not have known and had to act with what he had. That was NOT his fault.

Consequences? Of course, that's a main point of mine. One does not know where anything will lead, but that is also true with doing nothing. Making these choices is a job no one should envy.
Click to expand...

That decision, more broadly, involved weighing the reliability of the Russians versus the drawbacks of deepening US involvement in more Middle East strife. Even if Obama had doubts about the former he was pretty clear about the risks of the latter.

Saying we're in and out without any of this sticking to us is very premature IMO. There are lots of ways for Russia, Iran, and even Syria to exact direct or indirect retaliation against us which we will then have to respond to since we're now in the business of responding to provocations over this. I have very little confidence we've seen the end here.
 
K1052 said:
That decision, more broadly, involved weighing the reliability of the Russians versus the drawbacks of deepening US involvement in more Middle East strife. Even if Obama had doubts about the former he was pretty clear about the risks of the latter.

Saying we're in and out without any of this sticking to us is very premature IMO. There are lots of ways for Russia, Iran, and even Syria to exact direct or indirect retaliation against us which we will then have to respond to since we're now in the business of responding to provocations over this. I have very little confidence we've seen the end here.
Click to expand...


"In and out" means we have not committed to further action at the time of the attack. That does not mean the act is free from consequences. Doc Savage has posted that Assad has already responded. Now we wait.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
The price is irrelevant but if we want to go there we can afford the cost of the attack more than Assad especially if we hit a high value target. Again this has nothing whatsoever to do with maximal physical damage. It's a message.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a message. But my response was to a moron who thought otherwise.
 
Ns1 said:
Bomb the shit out of Syria but don't accept their refugees. A+
Click to expand...

As long as refugees are not fighting age males, I have no problem with it. If your country is in crisis you need to be fighting for one side or the other. That's the way it used to be, and that's the way it should be now.
 
momeNt said:
As long as refugees are not fighting age males, I have no problem with it. If your country is in crisis you need to be fighting for one side or the other. That's the way it used to be, and that's the way it should be now.
Click to expand...

Last I saw 2/3rds of Syrian refugees were women or kids under 12.
 
K1052 said:
I view the action itself as an implicit commitment to further action under these circumstances.
Click to expand...

I would not argue otherwise, but that action would be conditional at least for now. I haven't found any other sources for Assad attacking again, but assuming it is true what happens next is probably contingent on the type of weapons used. FWIW I'm uncomfortable with all of this as well.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
FWIW I'm uncomfortable with all of this as well.
Click to expand...

Everyone should be uncomfortable with escalation, and with retaliation attacks in general. The fact that any of this is even happening is representative of how unstable the region is, and how global powers meddling in things only makes it worse.

Unfortunately, we're in for a dime, in for a dollar.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
FWIW - As a conservative I voted for republicans EXCEPT President in which I voted for her. Why? Because I knew our economy would be 100% safe. I knew we wouldn't wouldn't have any huge recession unless it was beyond her control.
Click to expand...

President's can't control whether or not recessions happen. Pretty naive on your part. All gov't can do is to have sound policies that mitigate the significance and duration of one.
 
Somebody has some explaining to do as to why old crusty Tomahawks where able to make it through S-300 and S-400 coverage and strike their targets
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Except the people we are bombing are ALLIED with the Russians you dumbass. Can you get any more stupid, or are you just COMPLETELY oblivious to what is happening in Syria? Jesus fuck, seek mental counsel.
Click to expand...

RUssians were told the hit was coming and they removed their shit from that base prior to the strike. Our missiles flew over other Russian occupied bases there. If the Russians were closely allied with Syria they would have taken the hit on people and equipment and used the incident to escalate. Russia doesn't want to go nose to nose with the U.S. or NATO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top