U.S. and Allies strike Syria’s chemical weapons program

[Biggles]

He really doesn't need approval if they gave it in 2001 (the justification that Bush used to go to Iraq after Afghanistan). It is also the same justification that Obama used to go INTO Syria the first time. No, sir, what is good for the goose is good for the Gander. (edit to add) Add that to the fact that Syria has been declared a State Sponsor of Terrorism, and has been since the list's inception in 1979. (source)

As far as the UK and France is concerned, their respective representative bodies IS going to raise hell, and rightfully so. There is no such law in their books. As far as Theresa May is concerned specifically, she should fear Parliament as they COULD pass a vote of No Confidence.

I guess that would be the Military Industrial Complex Taxpayer Assistance Act. Create a completely, ill-defined, open-ended "War on Terror" that allows you to periodically expend your armaments stockpile.

I saw a segment on CNN (I think) where they visited the Raytheon facility that manufactures the Tomahawk missiles, The spokesperson was extremely proud to be supplying a weapons system that would help protect the "men & women in uniform". Beyond pure patriotism, what's in it for Raytheon is $1,000,000 a pop, & of course the jobs that go along with it. I imagine there is a mirror image of this Raytheon facility in Russia doing the same thing.

The analysis I heard on CNN was that this was considered just a "minor strike" unlikely to have much effect on Assad's military capacity ... so more air strikes to be expected, I suppose. BTW: what are "decoy" cruise missiles? Surely a missile that is capable of flying hundreds of miles is a "real" missile? What would be the point in firing such a missile that didn't actually carry explosives?

 

[zzz_pt]

What would be the point in firing such a missile that didn't actually carry explosives?

I'm a layman on the subject but I'd say these strategies have existed for as long as war has existed and a few of their main purposes - from the top of my head - are a) to make sure your opponent spends defensive resources (because they can't risk not to take down a decoy) so you can save "the real stuff" for later, when your opponent is lower on defenses or b) to access how well or I'll equipped your opponent is at any given moment.

Or you just want to make a geopolitical point and send a message to third parties (not the country you're directly targeting).

 

[Famine]

What would be the point in firing such a missile that didn't actually carry explosives?

To strike targets that don't actually hold chemical weapons?

 

[Sanji Himura]

To strike targets that don't actually hold chemical weapons?

Actually, it is to fake out the missile defense.

 

[Biggles]

I'm a layman on the subject but I'd say these strategies have existed for as long as war has existed and a few of their main purposes - from the top of my head - are a) to make sure your opponent spends defensive resources (because they can't risk not to take down a decoy) so you can save "the real stuff" for later, when your opponent is lower on defenses or b) to access how well or I'll equipped your opponent is at any given moment.

Or you just want to make a geopolitical point and send a message to third parties (not the country you're directly targeting).

What's the strategy? A long distance guided missile is (I'm supposing) a long distance guided missile regardless of whether it carries an explosive payload. The cost is in the missile itself, rather than the explosives. No?

 

[Milouse]

May decoy missiles have been used?

Decoy cruise missiles?

BTW: what are "decoy" cruise missiles? Surely a missile that is capable of flying hundreds of miles is a "real" missile? What would be the point in firing such a missile that didn't actually carry explosives?

"Cruise" word is actually a stowaway boarded during the Russian stopover.

As far as the UK and France is concerned, their respective representative bodies IS going to raise hell, and rightfully so.

Not in France. The president is the chief of armies. He can ask for a consultative vote , but that's it. The only case that he have to win a vote at National Assembly in war matters is to make a formal declaration of war to an other country.
Even if he had to ask for Syria, here's a picture of the current National Assembly:

Macron's party is in yellow, and the strike in Syria would only got a minority of vote among Red Lefts and Black/Grey nationalists FN.

 

[Rage Racer]

Would that be Professor Wikipedov?

Good joke, but no.

In case if "Doctor of Sciences" sounds weird to you, "Professor Wikipedov" can explain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doktor_nauk

What's the strategy? A long distance guided missile is (I'm supposing) a long distance guided missile regardless of whether it carries an explosive payload. The cost is in the missile itself, rather than the explosives. No?

Normally, decoy missiles are used to uncover the enemy air defense, and destroy it with the next strike, by anti-radar missiles.

Decoy missiles are also light enough to be launched from a fighter. Unlike Tomahawks.
And they can simulate radar signatures of a plane (even a strategic bomber) to be spotted on enemy radars as such.

"Cruise" word is actually a stowaway boarded during the Russian stopover.

Well, decoy missiles are guided aerodynamically in a powered flight, like cruise missiles (and unlike ballistic), so technically they may be called so. But perhaps it's not a correct term.

 

[Biggles]

Decoy missiles are also light enough to be launched from a fighter. Unlike Tomahawks.
And they can simulate radar signatures of a plane (even a strategic bomber) to be spotted on enemy radars as such.

Is there any evidence the US did launch missiles from planes? I'm not an expert on this at all, but I'm guessing the reason the US uses the Tomahawk missiles is because they allow it to strike from a distance without endangering US military personnel.

 

[Famine]

Decoy missiles are also light enough to be launched from a fighter. Unlike Tomahawks.

Tomahawk Block IV - 2,900lb
Storm Shadow - 2,900lb

What's Storm Shadow's launch system again? Oh yeah, the Tornado and Typhoon.

 

[Dennisch]

So much misinformation. CNN and RT would be proud.

 

[Rage Racer]

Is there any evidence the US did launch missiles from planes? I'm not an expert on this at all, but I'm guessing the reason the US uses the Tomahawk missiles is because they allow it to strike from a distance without endangering US military personnel.

Pentagon's report.
https://www.defense.gov/Videos/videoid/594372/

To launch missiles from planes, you don't need to enter the enemy AA defence and endanger the pilots. Just launch them from outside of the enemy AA zone.

Tomahawk Block IV - 2,900lb
Storm Shadow - 2,900lb

What's Storm Shadow's launch system again? Oh yeah, the Tornado and Typhoon.

Right. Somehow I forgot about what the Brits launched their missiles from.

Anyway, they are lighter and can be launched from a drone like MQ-1 Predator (that wouldn't carry even one missile weighing like Tomahawk).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Somehow I forgot about what the Brits launched their missiles from.

The Storm Shadow (or SCALP to most other forces) has enough range to have been launched from British territory (Akrotiri) if the Tornados had wished to do so. I doubt they even approached the coast.

 

[Imari]

But that energy won't make chlorine burn in the air!

Technically you're correct, but I doubt you understand why and it really defeats the point that you're making.

Chlorine is primarily an oxidant, like fluorine and oxygen. As such, it doesn't burn itself, it's more correct to say that it burns other things. Oxygen doesn't burn, but petrol burns with oxygen. Similarly, chlorine doesn't burn with iron/hydrogen/whatever, but just about everything burns with chlorine.

But the point was that the elemental chlorine will react in an explosion and no longer be elemental chlorine. Which is true, regardless of whether you're using the term "burn" in the strictly technical sense of oxidisation or in the casual sense of "react exothermically".

Actually, it is to fake out the missile defense.

Do they have decoy cruise missiles? I would have thought that the warhead in a cruise missile would be a tiny fraction of the actual cost of the whole thing, making decoys sort of pointless. Might as well just fire a functional missile for 10% more of the cost and hope it gets through.

Decoys make sense with MIRVs and such where additional warheads are redundant and expensive. I'd think you'd be better off putting countermeasures systems on cruise missiles like an aircraft rather than making decoy units. But I could be wrong, I don't know much about cruise missiles.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Do they have decoy cruise missiles? I would have thought that the warhead in a cruise missile would be a tiny fraction of the actual cost of the whole thing, making decoys sort of pointless. Might as well just fire a functional missile for 10% more of the cost and hope it gets through.

Decoys make sense with MIRVs and such where additional warheads are redundant and expensive. I'd think you'd be better off putting countermeasures systems on cruise missiles like an aircraft rather than making decoy units. But I could be wrong, I don't know much about cruise missiles.

Well, I am personally unsure of this, but they do use missiles in our missile defense system. And as you well know, a defensive weapon could be used as an offensive one. I have a few doubts on the number of actual missiles involved, but if there were at least 130 missiles from three countries involved - not counting Syria and I'm sure Russia - then some of the missiles that were sent were intentionally sent to protect the actual payload.

As far as making a decoy missile, it is rather simple to have a dummy warhead attached to a missile and send it on its way. Even Hideo Kojima found it rather simple.



The last bit is a bit irrelevent, but proves a point.

Edit to add: I used dummy in the sense of a test warhead, not as you see it commonly used in regards to smart missile technology.

 

[Scaff]

Right. Somehow I forgot about what the Brits launched their missiles from.

Anyway, they are lighter and can be launched from a drone like MQ-1 Predator (that wouldn't carry even one missile weighing like Tomahawk).

They weigh the same, you have just quoted Famine giving the weights, which are exactly the same!

Are you that seriously invested in trying to prove people wrong that you don't either bother to fact check or even read the posts you are quoting.

Given that the Typhoon can actually carry 4 GBU-48s (which is 4,000lbs in total), even a Tomahawk with booster tanks (3,500lbs) would still be possible in terms of weight.

 

[Rage Racer]

They weigh the same, you have just quoted Famine giving the weights, which are exactly the same!

Are you that seriously invested in trying to prove people wrong that you don't either bother to fact check or even read the posts you are quoting.

Given that the Typhoon can actually carry 4 GBU-48s (which is 4,000lbs in total), even a Tomahawk with booster tanks (3,500lbs) would still be possible in terms of weight.

Sorry, I phrased it inaccurately, so you misunderstood me.
The decoy missiles are lighter than Tomahawks, not Storm Shadows.

ADM-160 MALD weighs 100-250lbs (depending on the version) so it can be carried by light drones.
And a fighter can carry more than just two of them.

But the point was that the elemental chlorine will react in an explosion and no longer be elemental chlorine. Which is true, regardless of whether you're using the term "burn" in the strictly technical sense of oxidisation or in the casual sense of "react exothermically".

Of course, but you just need something that will react with chlorine easily, in all ways where it will be spread, if you want it to not be elemental chlorine anymore. The air will not.
If Famine says the explosion would disperse all of the chlorine to ineffective concentration, then it makes sense and is arguably possible.

 

[x3ra]

I'm calling "********". Where's the evidence of chemicals in Douma?

 

[Rallywagon]

I'm calling "********". Where's the evidence of chemicals in Douma?

You will have to talk to DoD officials for that... sadly, i doubt anyone here has them on speed dial. It is clear there was a chemical attack in Douma, who did it though depends on who you ask.

 

[x3ra]

You will have to talk to DoD officials for that... sadly, i doubt anyone here has them on speed dial. It is clear there was a chemical attack in Douma, who did it though depends on who you ask.

So what makes it CLEAR TO YOU, that there was a chemical attack, also what makes it CLEAR TO YOU that it was the Syrian army that did it?

 

[Danoff]

So what makes it CLEAR TO YOU, that there was a chemical attack, also what makes it CLEAR TO YOU that it was the Syrian army that did it?

That's not exactly how it works. Nations make claims about what their classified information tells them, and then it's only CLEAR (hopefully) to the people who have seen it whether it shows what was claimed.

 

[Rallywagon]

So what makes it CLEAR TO YOU, that there was a chemical attack, also what makes it CLEAR TO YOU that it was the Syrian army that did it?

Besides the videos and images and every country involved including russia and syria saying there was a chemcial attack in Douma? Dont know that I need more evidence then that. In fact, id say the only other better evidence would to have been on ground zero, which gladly none of us were. Do you have evidence this is all some sort of conspiracy?
As for the second question, reread what i wrote.

 

[x3ra]

Sorry missed that it. You didn't say who did it. Tree'd .

Virginia state senator interesting views.



He manages to explain what he thinks is going on in a far more comprehensive and believable manner and logic than anything the mainstream media has explained.

 

[Rallywagon]

Sorry missed that it. You didn't say who did it. Tree'd .

Virginia state senator interesting views.



He manages to explain what he thinks is going on in a far more comprehensive and believable manner and logic than anything the mainstream media has explained.

What he thinks....so its ok to assume on your end with no evidence but damn us for doing it ourselves?

 

[x3ra]

Of course not. And when you can show me an opinion that makes sense, and it's messenger is as level-headed as Richard Black, and which justifies your point of view, then I may change my mind.

 

[Scaff]

Of course not. And when you can show me an opinion that makes sense, and it's messenger is as level-headed as Richard Black, and which justifies your point of view, then I may change my mind.

So you like the bias of your source, but not the bias of other sources, so the onus is on others to prove the point but not you?

Got it.

 

[x3ra]

Where's your source then?

I have merely provided some comments by people who have something to say on the matter.

What do you think a war with Syria would accomplish, Scaff? And would that make you happy?

 

[Rallywagon]

Where's your source then?

I have merely provided some comments by people who have something to say on the matter.

What do you think a war with Syria would accomplish, Scaff? And would that make you happy?

The sources are on the bottom. Feel free to give them a read.

 

[Scaff]

Where's your source then?

I have merely provided some comments by people who have something to say on the matter.

What do you think a war with Syria would accomplish, Scaff? And would that make you happy?

I've not commented on anything that would require one, simply highlighting the double standard of your post.

 

[x3ra]

Good job you're here then.

 

[Rage Racer]

I'm calling "********". Where's the evidence of chemicals in Douma?

Who needs it? They said Assad did it, that means Assad did it. The French government defined it by Internet.

Just in case if OPCW wants to investigate while being in that place (unlike the French), Russia waits for the experts to arrive in Douma and is ready to provide them vehicles and security.