U.S attacks Syria

[photon]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

How does 50 tomahawk cruise misses not take out an airfield? If they hit yyc, it would destroy it...

Hardly, if they're carrying conventional warheads they're like 1000 pound bombs. Nasty, but 50 wouldn't even destroy Chestermere, let alone Calgary.

[nik-]

I'm thinking he's referring to YYC as in the airport.

[photon]

Oh, that makes more sense lol.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Yeah, someone's gotta have a look into this airstrike. It seems highly unlikely to me that the US wouldn't be able to accurately estimate the efficacy of this attack (unless a bunch of missiles landed in adjacent fields or their warranties just expired or something).

Maybe it's more complicated than it seems, but how hard can it be to render an airfield inoperable when you've got dozens of missiles at your disposal?

If it was calculated to be something less than completely effective at disabling that airport, some questions should be asked.

We don't know what the strike was comprised of. Its pretty generic when you say it was a cruise missile strike people tend to think that they're all single warhead high explosives.

But for all we know this could have been a strike that was comprised of a mix of single war head and submunition strikes.

Also if this was a military airbase a lot of the structures like aircraft shelters and tool shops are hardened against these attacks.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by photon

Hardly, if they're carrying conventional warheads they're like 1000 pound bombs. Nasty, but 50 wouldn't even destroy Chestermere, let alone Calgary.

Yeah they aren't that powerful and under normal war conditions wouldn't even be used to attack hardened bunkers or even runways but they can be effective if you wanted to call one santa and send it down Assads chimney.

This little attack was only meant to send a message not to use chemical gas, if he wanted to destroy that airport he would have sent a couple of B-2's and dropped some 5000 lb GBU buster bombs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Yeah they aren't that powerful and under normal war conditions wouldn't even be used to attack hardened bunkers or even runways but they can be effective if you wanted to call one santa and send it down Assads chimney.

This little attack was only meant to send a message not to use chemical gas, if he wanted to destroy that airport he would have sent a couple of B-2's and dropped some 5000 lb GBU buster bombs.

This, but unless your willing to risk pilot lives to do it, you lob some cruise missiles in. Its a similar response to the one that Bill Clinton launched against Iraq that took out a "Milk Factory"

I mean people are complaining that the airfield was operational fairly soon, but military airbases are designed to take a beating and continue to work.

It doesn't take long to fix an airfield at all. Plus hardened aircraft and storage shelters are designed to absorb cruise missile attacks.

Frankly what they should have done was hit it with a mix of conventional war heads a mix of delayed and undelayed submunitions and cruise missile deployed mines.

The airbase would have gotten operational but it would have taken longer.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Also if this was a military airbase a lot of the structures like aircraft shelters and tool shops are hardened against these attacks.

So it really was just meant to be a token; "Hey, don't do that" more than a vicious attack rendering it disabled.

I can accept that. Because as stupid as it is, Assad is fighting one of the same enemies the U.S. is and so it kind of makes them friend's of convenience. It's like they (the U.S.) are saying from that attack that they want to stay neutral, but don't make us look stupid in front of the world.

It makes political sense, but also shows how Trump exploited the situation for political gains. I doubt he cares about the gas attack on a personal level.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

So it really was just meant to be a token; "Hey, don't do that" more than a vicious attack rendering it disabled.

I can accept that. Because as stupid as it is, Assad is fighting one of the same enemies the U.S. is and so it kind of makes them friend's of convenience. It's like they (the U.S.) are saying from that attack that they want to stay neutral, but don't make us look stupid in front of the world.

It makes political sense, but also shows how Trump exploited the situation for political gains. I doubt he cares about the gas attack on a personal level.

It was pretty much the only option on the table, people that think that putting a military airbase out of business permanently without putting a lot of assets into play are fooling themselves

If the US wanted to take that airbase out permanently it would have been

A massive combined air force and navy strike with the use of long range bombers capable of carrying a lot of ordnance. The American's would have had to face the Syrian airforce backed up by Russian made advanced anti-aircraft defenses, and ground and likely airborne radar operated by Russians.

Also for that to happen properly and protect American lives they wouldn't have been able to inform the Russians which meant that Russian lives would have been lost.


Of they could have used nuclear armed cruise missiles.

This wasn't about taking the base out permanently, this was a warning.

Anyone who thinks that a flurry of cruise missiles is going to take out a military airbase for anything more then a few hours is ill informed.