Syria

[pjknibbs]

Were any missiles shot down, and, as yet, has any retaliation taken place?

Putin says 70-odd were shot down, Trump says none. Depends who you choose to believe, really...

[Hank001]

I'd warned people that Trump was looking for war. It's almost gotten to the point of being formulaic. If the "Administration" has domestic issues it can't deal with, start a war. Trump certainly is playing it to hilt. Been there.... Done that... It's not fun. (George commands and we obey. Ower' the hills and far away...)

[mrbadger]

Well you want a an incompetant leader, and you got one. You're going to let him start wars as a distraction method too. Then pretend that's not really why he's doing it.

Frankly if the citizens of the 'greatest nation in the world' can't deal with a home made despot then you deserve everything you get.

[Hank001]

Well put mrbadger. However after watching the Sunday morning Talkin Head programs I have the opinion from our Ambassador to the UN that it was the UK and France that lit Trump off. I have a picture in mind

From the result and it not getting that close to the Russians I'd say its back to Trump looking like he's acting tough and Putin doing the same and if they were in the same room all handshakes and drinks.

[mrbadger]

Well put mrbadger. However after watching the Sunday morning Talkin Head programs I have the opinion from our Ambassador to the UN that it was the UK and France that lit Trump off. I have a picture in mind

I rather doubt that. The US is way more lit up on attacking Syria than the UK has been.

But now it's been done, sharing the blame is a good way to say 'hey, it wasn't our idea'.

But the UK didn't fire the missiles, did we. No-one forced the US to do it.

Look at a map, the UK is a pissy little Island. You want to say we pushed you into it?

[Hank001]

You've got a good point there. "Nickey" our UN Ambassador made quite a point on "Face the Nation" this morning that Trump "listened" to UK and France.... Which since she's one of Trumps apologists should have tipped me off as to the veracity of the statements. (That being, of course, 0 or into the negative numbers.) Besides, when does DJT listen to anyone... Well except for foreign dictators. Which makes me wonder what he REALLY thinks about Assad?

[felter]

But the UK didn't fire the missiles, did we. No-one forced the US to do it.

The UK used 8 aircraft, 4 Tornado bombers and 4 Typhoon fighters to protect the bombers. Each Tornado carried 2 Storm Shadow missiles, which are the UK's own cruise missiles (French and Italian also use them). They are kind of a bunker buster, meaning they penetrate their target and then explode, rather than exploding on contact. All missiles were launched and all planes returned to base without instance. So if the Russians shot down all of the missiles, how come they managed to miss the 8 UK planes flying in Syrian air space, surely they would have been prime targets.

[RegisterMe]

Well they weren't in Syrian airspace. The Storm Shadow has a range of ~300 miles iirc. Apart from that I agree with you .

[felter]

Yeah they have a range of 150 - 300+ nautical miles, I take it they must have different payloads. The way I was thinking on it, they had a fighter escort, if they weren't in Syrian airspace just friendly airspace, they wouldn't have needed the escort. But yeah I suppose they may not have needed to go into Syrian airspace and the fighters were just there as some kind of backup as needed, or maybe they always fly with a fighter backup.

[Morkonan]

Yeah they have a range of 150 - 300+ nautical miles, I take it they must have different payloads. The way I was thinking on it, they had a fighter escort, if they weren't in Syrian airspace just friendly airspace, they wouldn't have needed the escort. But yeah I suppose they may not have needed to go into Syrian airspace and the fighters were just there as some kind of backup as needed, or maybe they always fly with a fighter backup.

When firing into enemy territory, "Friendly Airspace".. isn't. The "airspace" won't protect them from anything, but a fighter-escort will.

So, a research/development facility and some storage bunkers were blow'd the f up...

Putin says "WE SHOOTS TEHM ALL DOWN LOLZ!"

..

So, a research/development facility and some storage bunkers were blow'd the f up... Any missiles that were "shot down" don't fookin matter. A research/development facility and some storage bunkers were blow'd the f up.

"The bullet-proof vest protected the victim from three potentially lethal gunshot wounds, but they were killed by the shots that weren't aimed at the bullet-proof vest."

Anyway, this is all a non-issue. Syria's capabilities weren't seriously degraded by this action. Yes, some "we know where you are" facilities were turned into modern art masterpieces, but the planes will still be flying, the bombs still falling, the artillery still commanding battle and innocent civilians will still end up becoming an endangered species.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the US and Russia are still sitting in UNSEC calling each other poopyheads while others pay the price for international complacency.

[pjknibbs]

Anyway, this is all a non-issue. Syria's capabilities weren't seriously degraded by this action. Yes, some "we know where you are" facilities were turned into modern art masterpieces, but the planes will still be flying, the bombs still falling

I heard that Syria, having plenty of warning the US were planning something due to Trump's big mouth, moved a lot of their materiel to a Russian airbase in the north, since they correctly assumed the US wouldn't be so daft as to directly assault the Russians.

[Chips]

They moved their planes and fighters etc.

Why have fighter escorts for bombers? That may be RAF operating methods, who knows. I wouldn't read too much into it, but the Typhoon is more advanced than the Tornado, so perhaps it's the avionics and other things too. Really can't read into it tbh.

As for why the bombing - do nothing and chemical weapon use is (through silence) being accepted. Don't do anything when they use small scale, they may be reinvigorated to use much bigger payloads too - after all, gassing civilians would mean you wouldn't necessarily destroy the infrastructure as you would with conventional bombs. So surely a much more attractive measure against pesky rebels.

Message sent, it isn't much of a message admittedly, but no-one has appetite to wage a war and it's fairly obvious waging a war isn't on the cards either. I'd imagine it can step up from here if he continued... but it is sending a signal (and not just to Assad, but others who may have started to believe that using chemical weapons is fine as no-one notices).

[Hank001]

In the words of baseball great Yogi Bera it's "Desa Vu All over again. In Desert Storm it wasn't generally known the allies were told by the UNSC they had to inform Russia of some impending attacks "So they could evacuate their advisors." That's why the "bunker busting" failed to get Saddam and the Iraqi's moved civilians into the bunkers before hand and made a media show out of the result. Yes I have NO DOUBT the Russians knew Barsa was on the frag order before hand and no doubt they informed their Iraqi allies.

In the US the news isn't "We bombed Syria" it's that we have 2000 troops there and not are direct military offensive ops without the approval of congress. The downbeat is every president since Nixon has done this. What's new?

[Morkonan]

Anyway, this is all a non-issue. Syria's capabilities weren't seriously degraded by this action. Yes, some "we know where you are" facilities were turned into modern art masterpieces, but the planes will still be flying, the bombs still falling

I heard that Syria, having plenty of warning the US were planning something due to Trump's big mouth, moved a lot of their materiel to a Russian airbase in the north, since they correctly assumed the US wouldn't be so daft as to directly assault the Russians.

But, Russian mercs are fair game

No, we wouldn't attack a known Russian airbase... probably. In fact, I don't know how deep attacks are being considered. Skirmish-line, contested regions, incoming attacks against possible civilian targets - Sure, blow 'em, twice. But, if an attack came against largely civilian targets or threatened US personnel? And, if it was a known Russian airbase? Even if it was a known Russian aircraft? We might.

That's the problem with Syria. It's a cluster___. There is no "end game" in this conflict. The US wants to deny ISIS a home, or what's left of it, and then there's the humanitarian mission, which just means "support anyoe fighting against Assad and provide DMZs for refugees." (or something like that)

But, what's the end-game? What's the point? One doesn't go bouncing happily off to a nice little war without figuring out how to declare victory.

Ain't nobody got a plan...

PS - I heard some reports today that Assad's fans are even more dedicated after this recent action by the US. Uh... yay? WTG us!

[Hank001]

The "Nobody's got a plan" is certainly what goes for our side in this.
Just as I'm fairly sure that doesn't apply to Assad-Putin side since they appear quite adept at being the proactive force and quite adept at keeping their adversaries the reactive force.

Since any attempts at planning active operations go through channels that are open to Russia then the observation that Syria is a cluster **** is understatement! ISUL aside, it's also Russia's continuing proxy war with Iran, it's smarting over losing it's foothold in Iraq, and it's desire to.... well become the force in oil markets. They are playing a smart long game here.

It's unfortunate that if our side doesn't develop a strategy besides "counter the Russians" this is going to end up an all time debacle.

[Morkonan]

...They are playing a smart long game here.

All they have to do is sit. Well, and ensure that Assad is protected. This is Russia's limit of extended force. AFAIK, this is the furthest they have projected real military force since Cuba.

There's also "the pipleline" and, IIRC, some plans for more petroleum/NG related works in the Black Sea. Syria's a nice stopover if Turkey isn't feeling cooperative, though IIRC, the pipeline from central Russia is supposed to run all the way through to Turkey and beyond, widening Russia's market considerably, serving the Med and Europe as well as, perhaps, some ME countries that don't have rich reserves or refinery capability.

Want to make Russia edgy? Get Turkey to start voicing its opinion... OH, WAIT, Turkey hates the Kurds... Well, there goes that plan, huh? Technically... Russia is supporting forces in opposition to the Kurds.

The Kurds have been a serious issue since Desert Storm. And, we dropped the ball there, too, by incentivizing them and practically abandoning them until the SECOND friggin Iraq war. And, after? Sure, they were gun ho and we supported them. And, when ISIS threatened? There's the Kurds, showing us their will to fight, so we supported them and put them up as poster-kids for local resistance against ISIS. Turkey didn't like us giving them all that stuff too much... Fighting between the Kurds and Turkey, who sees them as a terrorist group if anything, has been ongoing since the first Iraq war. (Way before that, but that's when it started getting noticed by the West.)

Tell ya what - We fix it so Turkey and the Kurds are not at each other's throats anymore, at least for awhile, and maybe that'll be the leverage we need to get Russia to agree to regime change in Syria, provided they keep their base/port agreements with any new government. (Which can't really be denied, since that kind of thing is something that really should survive peaceful change in government.)

We make happy-play-nice between Turkey and Kurds, Turkey grumbles about Russia, which puts some strain on pipeline plans, and Russia comes to the table on talks for a new unified Syrian government, no redrawing of any borders necessary, and a new govt without Assad, who gets to "retire" without having to go to The Hague. (A huge ongoing threat, as well as a radical concern of the current Syrian govt, since nobody wants to see a new country start up right now, right next door to "everyone." (Well, except for the Kurds, who'd probably make a big push to be included?))

[Hank001]

Wasn't that easy in Desert Storm. That was a direct use of Chem wepons at a time when the US had... And this is gospel... Only one response to that on the books. Tactical nukes. Which DID NOT fly with the UN at all. We new our options there as far as doctrine went were 20 years out of date even in 1991, but the military had tried many times to have that doctrine updated and it got nowhere. The fear being any change in that "mini MAD" doctrine would lead to Russia using chem weapons. Their "use by proxy" or use by players was something the civilian leadership just didn't want to address. Then or for the most part now either. The military was told one thing. The use of tactical nukes was off the table. The other options lead up to the present doctrinel; conventional response and objections though international channels. What other flexibility the military has I don't know directly as it's classified. However from everything done or NOT done so far I'd say it's not been addressed past the "Immediately kick it upstairs and do what they tell us" doctrine. They sad part about being in Command and Control is knowing just how screwed up things are, basically why, and knowing our military gets put in these situations with no exit srategy at all. Because to get such a strategy it would have to go through congress and if that had happended they wouldn't have been deployed there in the first place. Sad, but true.

[Bishop149]

Putin says 70-odd were shot down, Trump says none. Depends who you choose to believe, really...

For once . . . . Trump.
Shooting down missiles is VERY hard, as I've mentioned before I used to work in the defence industry part of our site was devoted to the technology of shooting missiles down. That department had their own version of the high five . . . . . . you can probably guess what it looked like.
It's far easier to shoot at the things that launch the missiles, which was what Putin threatened to do and thankfully didn't.

As for the strikes themselves, I'm sure they will have very little impact. They knew they were coming, anything that could have been moved will have been.
The function of these strikes was to sooth the egos / conscience of the world leaders involved can pat themselves on the back for having done something about a deployment of chemical weapons that may have killed 100s, so they can continue to ignore and do sweet FA about conflict that's killed ~400,000 and displaced millions.

The message is pretty clear:
Chemical weapons = We might bomb something.
Indiscriminate mass slaughter with conventional weapons = Don't care, oh and we won't taking any refugees either.

[Hank001]

Missile v Missile kills. Not exactly impossible, just not exactly impossible. Remember Desert Storm and Patriot? Despite what was said (For a while it was classified above Top Secret) there wasn't close to a confirmed kill. The Scuds (or sometimes their FROG missiles though they called them Scuds in the media) without exception broke up on reentry stage and appeared to be hit by something, but the warheads usually survived the breakup with a four mile circular error probablity. That means the warhead could blow up anywhere within a four mile radius of the breakup point.

Which happened quite a bit. That assumed the Scud would break up at it's maximum stress point. If it broke up higher the radius increased. With present missile intercept weapons? Possible but accuracy depends on how far away the missile is. More time equals higher accuracy and better chance for intercept.

[Morkonan]

... Sad, but true.

True is true.

But, what is sad is that these "military actions," these uses of Presidential power, don't seem to... work. In responding to something with the President's power of "Commander in Chief" and despite the "War Powers Resolution" or Congress's AUMF against terrorists, we have yet to see true resolutions accomplished with the use of this sort of military force. I can think of two that were successful in that they accomplished a clearly stated objective. One was the whole "Grenada" thing, which "rescued" the students and blew up stuff and the other was the capture of Noriega, which captured a wanted criminal refusing to answer phone-calls from the CIA and for not paying his bills with the arms deale... I mean he was found guilty, in absentia, for "drugs an' stuff" so we went and got him an' stuff.

But, in the larger military actions we've undertaken that have been spurned on without a clear declaration or prior approval from Congress, what have we ended up with?

It seems that if we don't have someone first telling us and, in particular, Presidents, "don't step in that" then we end up with @$%$ on our boots.