WorthyNews: Sarin gas confirmed as weapon in Syria attack

[wingnut-]

1 hour ago, Running Gator said:

There was no significant damage to planes as we gave Russia warning of the attack and they had Syria move most of their planes.   So, we basically spent close to 100 million dollars worth of missiles to damage some buildings and send a "message", which I do not think was what was intended. 

 

It's a bit like a dog chasing its own tail isn't it?  Informing Russia of the intent negated the very purpose of the attack other than to waste a whole lot of tax money on a pointless endeavor.  If there was a message sent in this, I would say that message is, "Hey, look how wasteful we are!"

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, wingnut- said:

 

It's a bit like a dog chasing its own tail isn't it?  Informing Russia of the intent negated the very purpose of the attack other than to waste a whole lot of tax money on a pointless endeavor.  If there was a message sent in this, I would say that message is, "Hey, look how wasteful we are!"

That is the way I see it, but to some that makes me a Trump hater.  

At the same time, I understand why we had to tell Russia, just imagine if they had people or planes on the ground when we attacked...that could have been the start of a very bad war.

There was a lot of money spent and not a lot to show for it.  

[wingnut-]

1 minute ago, Running Gator said:

That is the way I see it, but to some that makes me a Trump hater.  

At the same time, I understand why we had to tell Russia, just imagine if they had people or planes on the ground when we attacked...that could have been the start of a very bad war.

There was a lot of money spent and not a lot to show for it.  

 

I agree, I understand why we told Russia, but what I don't agree with is leaving the runways intact.  If you want to make an airbase inoperable, that is what you take out and should have been the main focus.  Even if you don't get the planes, taking out the runways makes it hard to land or takeoff.  So that begs the question, why would the runways be left alone, and what genius devised this operation?

[hmbld]

22 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

I agree, I understand why we told Russia, but what I don't agree with is leaving the runways intact.  If you want to make an airbase inoperable, that is what you take out and should have been the main focus.  Even if you don't get the planes, taking out the runways makes it hard to land or takeoff.  So that begs the question, why would the runways be left alone, and what genius devised this operation?

Well, the runways are rather easy to repair quickly, so, according to the pentagon, they targeted planes and buildings which take longer to replace.  I assume there are other runways and airports in the area?

[PageofGrace]

50 minutes ago, Flowerwater said:

Trump haters are fun. 

No they're not. They run networks like Communist News Network, spread lies about our leader, then retract them, and then keep on as before. 

The individuals in the private sector that speak contrary to the facts are just tragic people who lie for a living. When the facts are front and center it isn't anyone else that looks bad but them.  It is a sorry state of affairs that has bubbled up in America. Professional journalists aren't that anymore. And angry sorry non-voters are just rabble rousers with nothing better to do than instigate conflict and demonstrate a contrary nature to the truth. That's really a shame because that's a symptom of an empty life that can only be filled by baiting people to give their lies attention. Their hate, attention. 

Can you imagine living like that? 

U.S. strikes destroyed Syrian means to deliver chemical weapons: admiral

[Running Gator]

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

 

I agree, I understand why we told Russia, but what I don't agree with is leaving the runways intact.  If you want to make an airbase inoperable, that is what you take out and should have been the main focus.  Even if you don't get the planes, taking out the runways makes it hard to land or takeoff.  So that begs the question, why would the runways be left alone, and what genius devised this operation?

The Russians has used this base in the past, so I wonder if they asked that the runways be left alone.

Or it might be just that cruise missiles are not very effective for runway damage.  Something like a Maverick from an F/A-18 or even lots of bombs from a B-52 are much more efficient at runway destruction.  But both of those run the risk of being messy, stray bomb killing civilians or a plane mishap or even being shot down. I think they wanted something nice and clean, so the missiles were the weapon of choice. 

[Running Gator]

1 hour ago, hmbld said:

Well, the runways are rather easy to repair quickly, so, according to the pentagon, they targeted planes and buildings which take longer to replace.  I assume there are other runways and airports in the area?

Runways are not as easy to repair as you might think, especially if they are heavily cratered.  

[wingnut-]

14 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

The Russians has used this base in the past, so I wonder if they asked that the runways be left alone.

Or it might be just that cruise missiles are not very effective for runway damage.  Something like a Maverick from an F/A-18 or even lots of bombs from a B-52 are much more efficient at runway destruction.  But both of those run the risk of being messy, stray bomb killing civilians or a plane mishap or even being shot down. I think they wanted something nice and clean, so the missiles were the weapon of choice. 

 

I considered that possibility, but if that were the case then there really was no need to bomb it in the first place, it accomplished nothing other than to use missiles that cost taxpayers a lot of money.

[hmbld]

23 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Runways are not as easy to repair as you might think, especially if they are heavily cratered.  

Well, as always, I guess we all get news from different sources, and I'll admit I don't know what news is worthy of reading or not, but here it is:

Partly, that was a calculation about the intended message to the Assad regime — one of deterrence, not escalation — but it was more about the actual physical effects.

“Really, the munitions that we were using, it would have been a waste of a munition,” the official said.

Each Tomahawk missile costs about $1.5 million. And the damage caused by the 1,000-pound warhead could be repaired within a few days, a defense official told Buzzfeed News.

So instead, the U.S. targeted all the other aspects of the airfield that make it functional: the aircraft and their hardened shelters, the missile defense system, and fueling stations.

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/04/heres-what-us-missiles-hit-syrian-airbase/136865/

 

[Running Gator]

11 minutes ago, hmbld said:

Well, as always, I guess we all get news from different sources, and I'll admit I don't know what news is worthy of reading or not, but here it is:

Partly, that was a calculation about the intended message to the Assad regime — one of deterrence, not escalation — but it was more about the actual physical effects.

“Really, the munitions that we were using, it would have been a waste of a munition,” the official said.

Each Tomahawk missile costs about $1.5 million. And the damage caused by the 1,000-pound warhead could be repaired within a few days, a defense official told Buzzfeed News.

So instead, the U.S. targeted all the other aspects of the airfield that make it functional: the aircraft and their hardened shelters, the missile defense system, and fueling stations.

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2017/04/heres-what-us-missiles-hit-syrian-airbase/136865/

 

As far as the news, I think we all agree on what was done, the only disagreement is whether it was worth 90 million dollars and if it sent a message or not.  My opinion is that it was a waste of money and sent the wrong message. 

Here is my take, coming from the perspective of a prior Airfield Operations Chief for the Marine Corps..

So we targeted, aircraft, shelters, missile defense system and fueling stations.

We told Russia we were going to do it and they told Syria who moved most of the planes.

The shelters turned out to be useless so there is no reason to even both to rebuild them, plus they are not needed to make an airfield functional. 

The missile defense system is a good target, but I have not read any damage assessments as to if we did anything to it. 

Fueling stations are as easy to replace/repair as a runway, maybe easier as you can always use mobile systems.