US Missiles Fired Into Syria

[Greg]

This ^^^

If they want to slaughter each other with anything and everything from knives and machetes, small arms, grenades, artillery, up to air support with bombs, napalm, *whatever*.... that's great. We could quietly act behind the scenes to help whoever maximize casualties.

When anyone feels free to make and employ WMDs we get interested. Anyone using them against us would face stiff (up to extinction level) reprisals, to set the right example.

Technologies that could be easily transferred to non-state actors need even tighter control. Especially in the hands of unstable and/or untrustworthy countries, even more so if those countries are weak enough for us to bully (opportunistic yes, but pragmatic).

It was in our interest to keep grubby little shit countries like Syria from having WMDs. We blew that. Now that they feel bold enough to use them (and rest assured we checked beforehand with the Russians that they do *not* have the full backing of a superpower-level nuclear armed patron) we want to discourage that. Set the tone. This is just a relatively minor reprisal, so minor precisely because we don't really have reason to care about any of those people, but we do want to send a 'do not use *those*' message.

[Rich]

Just a reminder that this is in a area of the world where peoples hate one another. Where Turkey can use the conflict to kill a few more Kurds and Sunni can kill a few more Shiites. And everyone can kill a few more Christians (or Jews).

[Rich]

Jerry Pournelle's reaction over at Chao's Manor is of note.

1135 You all know of the US missile strike in Syria. President Trump has found a dragon to kill, and he has dealt it a serious blow, although he did not slay it. The dragon had not attacked the United States, but it had left Syrian children gasping for breath as they died on camera. You could expect any man to react to that. Mr. Trump is certainly one of them. Only a monster would order that chemical attack, and monsters deserve death and destruction.

Observations:

Apparently all 50 Tomahawks struck home. Assuming that to be true, several deductions are possible.

First, those are slow missiles. Top speed, about 500 miles per hour. They are very accurate, but they are slow. They were in the air for at least half an hour. They went past areas defended by Russian missiles of SA-6 and newer, any of them capable of shooting down a slow cruise missile like a Tomahawk. It is unlikely that the fleet of 50 Tomahawks, fired in a time on target pattern, were not observed; but so far as I know, not one was intercepted.

Second, the attack was limited to a single military installation which was presumed to be the base from which the chemical attack on the Syrian civilians including children. While limited to that base area, the attack was massive: over fifty Tomahawk missiles, each carrying 1,000 pounds of high explosives, in a time on target attack by highly accurate missiles fired from ships who we may assume took a carefully controlled course during launch. We may assume the base was entirely destroyed. The missiles arrived at 0430, meaning there were few casualties; most base personnel would be in quarters, which we may assume were not targeted. We may assume the skippers and missile officers of the US destroyers had excellent satellite photographs of the base and knew all its buildings and their purposes. And we may conclude the base was destroyed.

The message is clear: You had six air bases, Now you have five. Do you care to try for four? Or fewer?

I think I would not have ordered that attack, affected as I was by the photographs of the effects of the chemical attack. Yes, it could only have been ordered by a monster deserving slaying. But there are many monsters. We could slay a dragon a month for a year, two years, but we would run out of resources before we would run out of dragons. I agree with John Quincy Adams. We do not go abroad seeking dragons to slay. We are the friends of liberty everywhere, but we are the guardians of our own. President Trump ordered this strike in the name of national security. It took place while he was at dinner with the President of China the evening before the first formal negotiations with China. It was only after they parted after dinner that President received the strike report and announced the strike, but the President of China must know that the attack was consummated during their otherwise uneventful dinner.

But if I were to order such an attack, it would have been as President Trump did it: massive, decisive, but limited in scope, destroying its target but with minimal collateral damage.

bubbles

A few observations: the gas employed probably was not sarin, soman or any other nerve agent. You do not die gasping for air if exposed to those nerve agents. You just die. What war gas was employed?

The symptoms resembled those of phosgene, but that war gas is so easily detected and identified that it is unlikely. I don’t know of many war gasses other than nerve agents that have the lethality reported. Wild speculation: medical personnel treated a suffocating gas with massive doses of nerve agent antidotes. Those antidotes plus the initial exposure to the suffocating agent might very well be fatal. But this is speculation, not to be taken as a conclusion based on anything other than TV observations,

[randy]

I do have to disagree with Dr. Pournelle on one issue (and agree with Jericho) (and to be fair, the good Doctor did caveat his statement):

You can get less than lethal effects with nerve agents. Lower doses can cause reactions similar to what was on the news. Too many factors involved and none of the press I've seen have shown any qualification or attempt to address them:

How old was chemical used. Given "insallah" maintenance procedures common in that part of the world, how was it stored and how climate controlled was the storage facility.

When were the weapons filled. How competent were the weapons techs. full fill of weapons? Concentration of chemical used.

Air or ground burst weapon. If air-burst, how high AGL. Wind-speed and direction.

How experienced were the medical personnel in treating victims of military (or even industrial) HAZMAT. Is it possible they are reporting secondary symptoms, or just plain misdiagnosing something they may have never seem before?

Yes, you can easily determine the identify of the chemical and the difference between (for example) Sarin and Phosgene. If you have trained personnel, with properly functioning and calibrated equipment and other items. Somehow I think any intact Chemical Reconnaissance units in the area are working for Assad or Putin and not likely to volunteer to interviewed on camera (or off).

Bottom line, at this time, we (the general public with no tie in to Intel feeds) just don't have enough information, and aren't likely to get it

[blackeagle603]

yeah, we want to signal that "normalizating" use of chem weapons is not going to come w/out a push back. Go ahead fight it out amongst your selfs but no gassing.

Second it signals Norks, Iranians, Russians (Crimea) and to lesser extent China (freedom of navigation in South China Sea) that the era or reset buttons and leading from behind is over. There's a less predictable, more dangerous cat working out of 1600 Pennsylvania.

[blackeagle603]

we may assume took a carefully controlled course during launch. We may assume the base was entirely destroyed.

Yeah, well the good Dr should prolly stick to medicine. If by "entirely destroyed" you mean "likely to be at least partial mission capable in days if not weeks" then yes, you got it right Doc.

[scipioafricanus]

Still not sure why if these assholes want to kill each other in job lots, we should interfere with that.

In this case mainly because we have a legitimate interest in discouraging proliferation and use of certain types of weapon.

Knowing that, and who helped bring things in Syria to this state... makes the Iran deal where we green lighted and agreed to help pay for, Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, even more, for lack of a stronger word, treasonous.

Buck Sexton: "Same people who bragged about getting all of Assad's chemical weapons out of Syria also promised us Iran won't get nukes Remember that"

[Jericho941]

Apparently this picture was taken at the airbase we TLAM'd the shit out of, and for comparison, a sarin canister being processed by the Russians for disposal.

C81jcO5W0AEGtIn.jpg

sarincan.jpg

[Darrell]

we may assume took a carefully controlled course during launch. We may assume the base was entirely destroyed.

Yeah, well the good Dr should prolly stick to medicine. If by "entirely destroyed" you mean "likely to be at least partial mission capable in days if not weeks" then yes, you got it right Doc.

Jerry Pournelle is not a medical doctor. He is a PhD, and was long involved in US military weaponry and policy. He is also a writer.

[Jericho941]

Dude's been mostly a sci-fi author since, what, '73?

In any case, aside from the already-covered sarin issues, I still have a few problems with his deductions:

First, those are slow missiles. Top speed, about 500 miles per hour. They are very accurate, but they are slow. They were in the air for at least half an hour. They went past areas defended by Russian missiles of SA-6 and newer, any of them capable of shooting down a slow cruise missile like a Tomahawk. It is unlikely that the fleet of 50 Tomahawks, fired in a time on target pattern, were not observed; but so far as I know, not one was intercepted.

The Tomahawk isn't just slow, it is also hard to detect. There's a difference between Russia's SA-6 coverage and its ability to see terrain-following targets. Given the Tomahawk's nap-of-the-Earth flying and the lack of a net of look-down, shoot-down radars over Syria, it's far from implausible that a Tomahawk could penetrate such a net undetected. And even if it was detected, it is also far from implausible that the Russians would shrug and decide it's not worth bothering with.

Second, the attack was limited to a single military installation which was presumed to be the base from which the chemical attack on the Syrian civilians including children.

why do you have to talk like a space alien

While limited to that base area, the attack was massive: over fifty Tomahawk missiles, each carrying 1,000 pounds of high explosives, in a time on target attack by highly accurate missiles fired from ships who we may assume took a carefully controlled course during launch. We may assume the base was entirely destroyed. The missiles arrived at 0430, meaning there were few casualties; most base personnel would be in quarters, which we may assume were not targeted. We may assume the skippers and missile officers of the US destroyers had excellent satellite photographs of the base and knew all its buildings and their purposes. And we may conclude the base was destroyed.

The entire world has had intel assets pointed at this conflict for years now. Our military is networked. What are you even driving at, besides the fact that we're fucking awesome?

The message is clear: You had six air bases, Now you have five. Do you care to try for four? Or fewer?

As Blackeagle pointed out: Nnnnnnnnno. Not so much. I believe Randy has also covered at length how you don't simply bomb an airbase a little bit.

I would say that the message is: if you use your toys to deploy WMDs, we will break them. Because ~25 tons of HE is not gonna render an entire airbase inop. But it can break the assets you use to deploy said WMDs, thus inconveniencing you, and delivering a firm peepee smack.

I think I would not have ordered that attack, affected as I was by the photographs of the effects of the chemical attack.

My, what a hard choice from your desk.

Yes, it could only have been ordered by a monster deserving slaying. But there are many monsters. We could slay a dragon a month for a year, two years, but we would run out of resources before we would run out of dragons.

Here's the thing about dragons: they fly where they please, and they eat where they fly.

I agree with John Quincy Adams. We do not go abroad seeking dragons to slay. We are the friends of liberty everywhere, but we are the guardians of our own.

We are the friends of liberty right up until that we are asked what that friendship means, and then the answer is "fuck you, got mine."

President Trump ordered this strike in the name of national security. It took place while he was at dinner with the President of China the evening before the first formal negotiations with China. It was only after they parted after dinner that President received the strike report and announced the strike, but the President of China must know that the attack was consummated during their otherwise uneventful dinner.

Are we North Korea? Do we need China's permission to act? Seriously though, why do people keep bringing up China in this matter? Why would China care?

But if I were to order such an attack, it would have been as President Trump did it: massive, decisive, but limited in scope, destroying its target but with minimal collateral damage.

Congratulations doctor, you're saying the same thing as one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I've already been over the nerve gas shit. Sarin is confirmed by reliable sources. It is what it is, and here we are.