• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was the missile strike on syria a success

was the attack a success

  • yes

    Votes: 13 35.1%

  • no

    Votes: 9 24.3%

  • other

    Votes: 15 40.5%
  • Total voters
    37
apdst said:
That's why we should land one million troops in the Sinai and march east until we get to the Indian border, civilizing the entire region.
Click to expand...

That....would not be a great idea.
 
Aspasia said:
It was a strategic blunder because it made the possibility of WWIII more likely. Time to GTFO.
Click to expand...

Funny how showing any sort of spine is always considered a precursor to World War III. American and Russian pilots were actively shooting each other down for three years when ****ing Stalin still ran the USSR and there was no Third World War; there certainly wouldn't be one against a Russia which barely qualifies as a pale shadow of that one.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
It's going to depend a lot on the quality of the crews handling the systems. The biggest weakness of the Tomahawk is that it's subsonic, whereas a lot of Soviet/Russian gear was designed to intercept supersonic missiles. Given proper warning (via long rage over the horizon radar) it's certainly within the capabilities of the air defense systems themselves to shoot down a Tomahawk. What really matters is whether the Syrian crews running these systems are trained enough to properly identify, track, and target the Tomahawks as they appear on their radar.
Click to expand...

Seeing that the S-300 does 5,000 mph, I would say that's the Tomahawk's chief advantage.

It's like an F-16 dogfighting a Sopwith Camel: the F-16 is going so fast, the pilot doesn't have time to engage the Camel.
 
No.

We wasted 200+Million in hardware.

Good for the corporations making missiles though.
 
Tigerace117 said:
That....would not be a great idea.
Click to expand...

It would be perfect. And behind the one million troops, there should three times as many doctors, lawyers and teachers to re-educate everyone who's left alive.
 
beerftw said:
It was said on many msm and non msm that nothing of interest was damaged, but that is just speculation as no one knows for sure other than nato or the russian and syrian govt, and i doubt either would tell the whole truth on the matter.
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I figured too.
 
apdst said:
That's why we should land one million troops in the Sinai and march east until we get to the Indian border, civilizing the entire region.
Click to expand...

one million of whose "troops?"
 
apdst said:
It would be perfect. And behind the one million troops, there should three times as many doctors, lawyers and teachers to re-educate everyone who's left alive.
Click to expand...

To call it a "****storm of epic proportions" would be putting it mildly. Then again, it would obviously never get off the ground.
 
Rexedgar said:
one million of whose "troops?"
Click to expand...
Since "we" are "landing" them, I'm assuming US troops.

....

Do we even have 1mil troops available to deploy?
 
apdst said:
That's why we should land one million troops in the Sinai and march east until we get to the Indian border, civilizing the entire region.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious. :lamo
 
apdst said:
Seeing that the S-300 does 5,000 mph, I would say that's the Tomahawk's chief advantage.

It's like an F-16 dogfighting a Sopwith Camel: the F-16 is going so fast, the pilot doesn't have time to engage the Camel.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Targeting computers would simply calculate a trajectory for a mid-air intercept. It would all be done through the onboard computer system.
 
Top Cat said:
You can't be serious. :lamo
Click to expand...

apsdt, the western Indian border or the eastern one? The moonshine is potent tonight........
 
The Mark said:
Since "we" are "landing" them, I'm assuming US troops.

....

Do we even have 1mil troops available to deploy?
Click to expand...

If we activate all our reserve troops we have around 3.5 mill while russia would have around 3.25 mill, however neither country is going to activate their entire forces and send them overseas leaving themselves defenseless. Us active duty is about 1.2 million, far lower than during the cold war, but keep in mind how many are stationed abroad, making a million soldiers anywhere short of an epic draft or calling major reserves impossible.
 
apdst said:
Tactically it was a success: they hit all their targets and remained below the accepted loss rate.

Strategically, we'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
Well said. Whether this was a success or not can only be judged in the long run. Will Syria continue creating and using these weapons is he criterion. If so, what then?
 
It allowed Trump to make a Prime-Time TV announcement, and it's knocked Comey's book off the front pages today, and Comey off much of the TV studio seats tomorrow morning. Mission Accomplished!
 
apdst said:
That's why we should land one million troops in the Sinai and march east until we get to the Indian border, civilizing the entire region.
Click to expand...

adpst:

Schwertbrüder, Marsch nach Osten,?!? It's been tried before many times and has always failed in misery.

Silly Rabbit!
Evilroddy.
 
Was it a success? Depends on the metrics. Unfortunately the American public, hell, the Congress, isn't privy to whatever justification Trump used to run his proposed actions passed the OLC. We know there was no debate among members of Congress. As with damn near everything Trump has initiated or wants to initiate there is little or no valid data and no criteria to measure success.

Did the US, France and England blow **** up? Yes, it appears that did happen. Yes, if their joint mission was to blow **** up it might have been a success without harming Russians. Beyond that, who knows?
 
Another thought of mine is the s-400 system, touted as the best anti aircraft system in the world, will russia ever use it? My guess is not anytime soon, as american govts are probably scared to test 100-200 million a piece aircraft to test the system, and everytime aircraft incoming putin probably demands he check his funds first to ensure they can replace it.

The s-400 costs around +- 400 million per battery, far more than any barrage of cruise missiles, so I doubt we will ever get to see how effective it really is unless russian assets are affected, and even then it may be decided based on the worth of those assets vs the costs of the missiles, especially since older systems have proven effective and have been quite cheaper so cheap even third world nations have the older junk.
 
apdst said:
That's why we should land one million troops in the Sinai and march east until we get to the Indian border, civilizing the entire region.
Click to expand...

Sure, start World War III. That's one of the stupidest things I've seen posted lately, lol.
 
beerftw said:
If we activate all our reserve troops we have around 3.5 mill while russia would have around 3.25 mill, however neither country is going to activate their entire forces and send them overseas leaving themselves defenseless. Us active duty is about 1.2 million, far lower than during the cold war, but keep in mind how many are stationed abroad, making a million soldiers anywhere short of an epic draft or calling major reserves impossible.
Click to expand...
That is more or less what I figured.
 
Wag the dog.
 
Top Cat said:
You found the original Fake News interesting? :lamo
Click to expand...

Oh. Well, I gave you two different sources of information. Which is fake? Both of them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom