Trump Thread

[Greyblades]

That's the point - America's promise was they were not going to get involved in the Middle East. There was no threat, just action without warning. And now, no follow up or strategy. Amateur hour.

That promise is likely why there is no follow up. As to strategy it looks to me like trump's going back to business as usual bombing isis. Which is good.

If the rebels are almost as bad as Assad then what is the point? Unless this is purely about the methodology of the killing. Nonsensical to me.

The point is that america made a promise to retaliate against syria if they use chemicals and trump unlike obama isnt too timid to fulfill it.

I am sure Russia can manage to protect bases if they want them. Rather like the Israelis have managed to keep the Golan Heights, Russia in Crimea and so on. Give some weapons to the nearby warlords to kill their enemies usually works.

Manage to, yes, want to, no.

It's cheaper to have a buffer that is allready friendly to you than hope the nearby warlords who replaces him isnt a raving islamic lunatic who cant be bought.

Russia will back whichever puppet looks like winning in the areas of the country they wish to control, as will Iran. I doubt Russia has any loyalty more than a chess grandmaster does.

No, russia will back whichever puppet will play ball with them, which right now is only Assad.

Sean Spicer says stupid things all the time and this wasn't even an exception since the point he did want to make was just as idiotic as any possible misinterpretation.

A boring response by all metrics, and one that ignores the point, he screwed up repeatedly but the anti trump brigade comes along and piles on crap, turning "Assad is worse than hitler" into "hitler did nothing wrong!!"

[Fragony]

Trump absolutily did something wrong, no way he could have known who is who and who did what and why who nobody knows why anybody did anything at all, a strike after one day?

[Husar]

A boring response by all metrics, and one that ignores the point, he screwed up repeatedly but the anti trump brigade comes along and piles on crap, turning "Assad is worse than hitler" into "hitler did nothing wrong!!"

Yeah, Assad should have dropped the gas in a shower instead of a container to score more humanism points.

Or maybe the distinction was that Hitler "didn't use it on his own people" in the sense that communists, jews, gypsies and the disabled were not "his people", but then we've just reached a new level of despicable and racist. Or maybe he meant "Hitler didn't use it on the frontlines but only at home", to clarify this, Spicer said "Assad dropped it on innocent...", so what is his real point? Hitler didn't gas innocent people? It's better to use it at home than on the frontlines? Or just that the use was technically different, in which case I wonder why exactly Assad is worse then? Why does it even matter?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump absolutily did something wrong, no way he could have known who is who and who did what and why who nobody knows why anybody did anything at all, a strike after one day?

Do not dismiss the ability of national technical means and good image/technical record evaluators to quickly piece together what happened. The planes doing the strike were likely visible on satellite. The facilities used to load those planes were probably readily discernible. Any use of satellite phones, GPS signals, even cellular phone traffic can be monitored. The monitoring of that region of the world is near constant at the present time given the issues with Turkey, the Civil War itself, and the conflict with ISIS/DASH.

It is harder to presume that they were able to secure information on the "why" of it, but I suspect that the rest was pretty well evaluated.

As to the correctness of Trump's chosen response, that is a separate argument.

[Beskar]

Did anyone see the Interview? Trump was having a really big chocolate cake, most beautiful chocolate ever, then the generals came up to him saying the missles were locked and loaded. So he tells them to fire away! 59 missiles, all unmanned, from hundreds of miles away, hitting their target in Iraq... "Do you mean Syria?"... yes, hitting their target in Syria. It was beautiful.

[Husar]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...02f_video.html

There's the relevant part of the video.

[Idaho]

And now the BIGGEST BOMB EVARRRRRRRR!

Cue news editors and general public nutjobs becoming instantly tumescent.

Who could have predicted that Trump would quickly reach for the "enemy out there"?

You know what the next enemy needs to be if this one proves too expensive or complex? Yep. One closer to home.

[HopAlongBunny]

In a shameless plug for his book: Wag the Dog the author gives a little oversight of familiar events; how they fit the model, and the very short memory of media and its consumers (all of us Katy!:)

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...081501253.html

[Fragony]

Dropping a justnotbomb and sending fleet to NK, kinda makes you doubt why you (well me) were glad Trump won instead of the borderline stephard wife

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The media is focused on size, not on effect. All phallologocentric humor aside, it was a reasonable choice.



The enemy is in a canyon region, dug into tunnels 40m deep in rocky terrain. You can do the following:

1) drop conventional dumb bombs ($3,100 per) until enough 7-10 meter deep craters stacked on top of each other vertically until they breach or collapse the tunnels. You will have to use multiple strikes per 100 cubic meter area and those targeted will probably have a modest amount of time to vacate the area before they are actually killed.

2) drop guided conventional bombs (c. $27,500 per or $66,500 for laser precision) to create the same effect as in 1). Still requires multiple strikes albeit slightly more rapidly and with fewer misses to decrease the effect. Will not probably reduce the chance of the targets evacuating before they can be killed but will up the cost significantly.

3) drop guided deep penetrators ( to instantly breach and collapse the tunnels. The only munition we have that can do this, the MOP, costs $3M a bomb, can only by dropped by the B2, and we have fewer than 30 in our weapons stock. A large bunker complex connected by tunnels could well require ALL of those weapons to take it out.

4) MOAB ($16m per) uses massive fuel-air blast to create a huge blast wave and concussion effect. The explosion consumes so much oxygen that it depletes the local area of breathable air while creating it's little mushroom cloud explosion. It works on the deep tunnels by inducing a shockwave that mimics an earthquake locally while sucking all of the air out of any tunnels in the confined canyon region. It is deployed by being dumped out the back of a C-130 (among the lowest tech things in our arsenal). It is a costly bomb, but cheaper than any of the 3 previous options. This is why the military was labeling it the right bomb for the right target.

5) Use a nuclear bomb (c. $2M per) air-burst. Massive shockwave and heat will immolate the surface and collapse many of the tunnels. The deepest may survive both blast and radiation. The use of a nuclear weapon carries a number of political consequences along with a notable dose of fallout (though US weapons are comparatively 'clean' ones).

6) Use a nuclear weapon ground-burst. This will obliterate the target (the only option to do so with an essentially 100% effectiveness chance), wreck the local terrain for a generation, and pump a ridiculous amount of fallout into the atmosphere when compared to an air burst weapon. Political consequences will be as bad, possibly worse, than in option 5).

7) Use ground troops to eliminate the enemy forces after cordoning them into their valley. This would involve hunting the enemy in the tunnels after fighting up to and breaching the entrances. Since even a muj* can shoot effectively in a narrow tunnel, this would be a knacker's yard for all involved and would generate boatloads of casualties. As cheap or cheaper than 1) if you ignore the blood cost.

8) Leave them alone and let them go about their business.


Since 8) was not politically acceptable, 4) actually became a fairly reasonable choice. Please note that the cost of delivery systems, operational costs, and training costs were ignored in this listing as they are all "sunk" costs for choosing to execute any of the plans.


*_{Apparently, a sizeable proportion of the mujahedeen foot-soldiers take the view that it is their job to shoot at the enemies of the faith but that whether the bullet hits the target is in the hands of Allah. Literally a 'spray and pray' attitude.}

[Idaho]

Just because you can weave together a reasonable post hoc justification based on the scraps of unreliable evidence we have, doesn't mean that it's not a stupid thing to do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just because you can weave together a reasonable post hoc justification based on the scraps of unreliable evidence we have, doesn't mean that it's not a stupid thing to do.

True, and just because Trump ordered it doesn't make it dumb.

There were a lot of liberals last Friday nodding along after Trump took out that air-base, by Saturday they were back to lambasting him for ever entertaining support for Assad.

[HopAlongBunny]

It pretty much fits with American doctrine.
Weaken any regional strongman; exploit...assist the weakened remains => profit!
It also fits America's lack of a long-term strategy: flashy, successful with 0 end goal in sight.

[Montmorency]

Seamus, as we've already noted here strategic or even financial damage to the airbase was not the object of the strike. It wasn't meant to disable the target to a serious extent, or hamper the wider Syrian military.

Missiles, in that case, have the advantage of being unmanned when flying over hostile territory.

[Idaho]

True, and just because Trump ordered it doesn't make it dumb.

There were a lot of liberals last Friday nodding along after Trump took out that air-base, by Saturday they were back to lambasting him for ever entertaining support for Assad.

The mainstream media and politico rejoicing on resumption of bombing is very disturbing.

[Husar]

Just because you can weave together a reasonable post hoc justification based on the scraps of unreliable evidence we have, doesn't mean that it's not a stupid thing to do.

Well, I think Seamus laid out the military options very well, he just didn't provide a long-term answer to end these shenanigans. In the long-term view it may indeed have been a dumb move, but as HAB says, the USA don't seem to have any long-term strategy. In good modern capitalist fashion they go for instant gratification and short-term maximization of the ROI. Whether it all backfires in 10 years is irrelevant if all strategy is dedicated towards the next "financial statement" at the end of the year...

The beauty is that the voters have similarly short memories and a disdain for complex chains of events. So when the 36 dead ISIS fighters today lead to 5 terror attacks planned by 360 people who only joined ISIS to take revenge in ten years, the voters will only blame muslims and demand more bombings. It all works out in the end though because more bombings is a good effort in job creation and everyone can have some patriotic feelings. Also think of the people employed to make the movies...

Seamus, as we've already noted here strategic or even financial damage to the airbase was not the object of the strike. It wasn't meant to disable the target to a serious extent, or hamper the wider Syrian military.

Missiles, in that case, have the advantage of being unmanned when flying over hostile territory.

It would seem you are replying to Seamus' last post, but he was talking about the big bomb dropped in Afghanistan and you about the missiles launched at a Syrian air base. Am I missing something?

[Montmorency]

It would seem you are replying to Seamus' last post, but he was talking about the big bomb dropped in Afghanistan and you about the missiles launched at a Syrian air base. Am I missing something?

My bad then.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Just because you can weave together a reasonable post hoc justification based on the scraps of unreliable evidence we have, doesn't mean that it's not a stupid thing to do.

I wasn't addressing the "whether we ought to be taking military action at all" question. If the action was "stupid," it would have been so on THAT level. My response touched on the more tactical considerations once than choice had been made.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My bad then.

No sweat, but I was referencing the MOAB drop.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It pretty much fits with American doctrine.
Weaken any regional strongman; exploit...assist the weakened remains => profit!
It also fits America's lack of a long-term strategy: flashy, successful with 0 end goal in sight.

Again, my response was on a tactical level. You are addressing a strategic concern. While I am not quite so jingoistic in my dismissal of American strategy in these things, your basic premise -- that we tend to skimp on the long term thinking in favor of the short term -- is a valid criticism. Bit of a weakness in our system really, the consistency in foreign policy thing.

[Fragony]

They trapped themselves nicely no, why throw a big bomb unless for a wargasm. They don't need to be immediatly dead, think medieval siege tactics. Starve the fuckers, they need food and water after all and will start killing eachother (and give it to them when they come out unarmed)

[Tristuskhan]

They trapped themselves nicely no, why throw a big bomb unless for a wargasm. They don't need to be immediatly dead, think medieval siege tactics. Starve the fuckers, they need food and water after all and will start killing eachother (and give it to them when they come out unarmed)

Just like the Soviet did 1979-1987?

Proceed, then. Come back and tell us when you're successful. Looks that you're as bright as Brejnev, at least...

[Gilrandir]

The media is focused on size, not on effect. All phallologocentric humor aside, it was a reasonable choice.



The enemy is in a canyon region, dug into tunnels 40m deep in rocky terrain. You can do the following:

1) drop conventional dumb bombs ($3,100 per) until enough 7-10 meter deep craters stacked on top of each other vertically until they breach or collapse the tunnels. You will have to use multiple strikes per 100 cubic meter area and those targeted will probably have a modest amount of time to vacate the area before they are actually killed.

2) drop guided conventional bombs (c. $27,500 per or $66,500 for laser precision) to create the same effect as in 1). Still requires multiple strikes albeit slightly more rapidly and with fewer misses to decrease the effect. Will not probably reduce the chance of the targets evacuating before they can be killed but will up the cost significantly.

3) drop guided deep penetrators ( to instantly breach and collapse the tunnels. The only munition we have that can do this, the MOP, costs $3M a bomb, can only by dropped by the B2, and we have fewer than 30 in our weapons stock. A large bunker complex connected by tunnels could well require ALL of those weapons to take it out.

4) MOAB ($16m per) uses massive fuel-air blast to create a huge blast wave and concussion effect. The explosion consumes so much oxygen that it depletes the local area of breathable air while creating it's little mushroom cloud explosion. It works on the deep tunnels by inducing a shockwave that mimics an earthquake locally while sucking all of the air out of any tunnels in the confined canyon region. It is deployed by being dumped out the back of a C-130 (among the lowest tech things in our arsenal). It is a costly bomb, but cheaper than any of the 3 previous options. This is why the military was labeling it the right bomb for the right target.

5) Use a nuclear bomb (c. $2M per) air-burst. Massive shockwave and heat will immolate the surface and collapse many of the tunnels. The deepest may survive both blast and radiation. The use of a nuclear weapon carries a number of political consequences along with a notable dose of fallout (though US weapons are comparatively 'clean' ones).

6) Use a nuclear weapon ground-burst. This will obliterate the target (the only option to do so with an essentially 100% effectiveness chance), wreck the local terrain for a generation, and pump a ridiculous amount of fallout into the atmosphere when compared to an air burst weapon. Political consequences will be as bad, possibly worse, than in option 5).

7) Use ground troops to eliminate the enemy forces after cordoning them into their valley. This would involve hunting the enemy in the tunnels after fighting up to and breaching the entrances. Since even a muj* can shoot effectively in a narrow tunnel, this would be a knacker's yard for all involved and would generate boatloads of casualties. As cheap or cheaper than 1) if you ignore the blood cost.

8) Leave them alone and let them go about their business.


Since 8) was not politically acceptable, 4) actually became a fairly reasonable choice. Please note that the cost of delivery systems, operational costs, and training costs were ignored in this listing as they are all "sunk" costs for choosing to execute any of the plans.


*_{Apparently, a sizeable proportion of the mujahedeen foot-soldiers take the view that it is their job to shoot at the enemies of the faith but that whether the bullet hits the target is in the hands of Allah. Literally a 'spray and pray' attitude.}

One more option forgotten: smoke'em out with sarin.

[Strike For The South]

Lately, a great malaise has overtaken me. I have tried to resign myself to the fact that the United States will use force as a matter of course. A superpowers sheer inertia almost demands some kind of intervention occasionally. By virtue of being an American citizen I am in some fashion complicit in this. The blood soaks all of our hands, from the top down. I understand that when I am committed to the earth, I will have to answer for this.

However, I find it totally unconscionable that millions of South Koreans may die because some fat, micrococked, hedionsit shit stain wanted to start his "Easter" weekend early. If Korea launches a nuke, they will fizzile out somewhere over the pacific in a testament to delusion. What won't fail is the millions of pounds of ordinance pointed at Seoul. Those are the people I feel for. The people who's lives will be vaporized because America had a midlife crisis and elected a man whom couldn't be bothered.

[Husar]

Lately, a great malaise has overtaken me. I have tried to resign myself to the fact that the United States will use force as a matter of course. A superpowers sheer inertia almost demands some kind of intervention occasionally. By virtue of being an American citizen I am in some fashion complicit in this. The blood soaks all of our hands, from the top down. I understand that when I am committed to the earth, I will have to answer for this.

However, I find it totally unconscionable that millions of South Koreans may die because some fat, micrococked, hedionsit shit stain wanted to start his "Easter" weekend early. If Korea launches a nuke, they will fizzile out somewhere over the pacific in a testament to delusion. What won't fail is the millions of pounds of ordinance pointed at Seoul. Those are the people I feel for. The people who's lives will be vaporized because America had a midlife crisis and elected a man whom couldn't be bothered.

IIRC in the last discussion some people ensured me that the artillery is too old and will mostly fail anyway. It really sounds like a win-win-win situation where you can happily massacre millions of poor, brainwashed North Koreans and feel all righteous when you go to sleep. Of course there might be some collateral damage but that will be overshadowed by all the glory and righteousness to be had.

[HopAlongBunny]

Dropping the "beautiful bomb": https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-afghanistan/; helps fulfill the only 2 larger goals the USA ever seems interested in:

1) off load/expend munitions to keep the domestic warmachine churning;
2) demonstration that these touted weapons do in fact work

[Fragony]

Lately, a great malaise has overtaken me. I have tried to resign myself to the fact that the United States will use force as a matter of course. A superpowers sheer inertia almost demands some kind of intervention occasionally. By virtue of being an American citizen I am in some fashion complicit in this. The blood soaks all of our hands, from the top down. I understand that when I am committed to the earth, I will have to answer for this.

However, I find it totally unconscionable that millions of South Koreans may die because some fat, micrococked, hedionsit shit stain wanted to start his "Easter" weekend early. If Korea launches a nuke, they will fizzile out somewhere over the pacific in a testament to delusion. What won't fail is the millions of pounds of ordinance pointed at Seoul. Those are the people I feel for. The people who's lives will be vaporized because America had a midlife crisis and elected a man whom couldn't be bothered.

I kinda wonder if they would do something as atrocious as shelling Seoul. Small diplomatic public secret, French nukes are directed at all major European cities. Ours probably as well. We are teh EU right

[Tristuskhan]

Small diplomatic public secret, French nukes are directed at all major European cities. Ours probably as well. We are teh EU right

Alternative facts... Bigger diplomatic secret: those nukes are so unreliable they are aimed at villages around Brest, no more than 30 kms from the sub base. And we keep our subs because the crews once retired make good, smooth, glowing public lighting.

[Fragony]

Alternative facts... Bigger diplomatic secret: those nukes are so unreliable they are aimed at villages around Brest, no more than 30 kms from the sub base. And we keep our subs because the crews once retired make good, smooth, glowing public lighting.

Why redicule something something someone isn't even sure about, bite that belly if you want I already rolled over

[Tristuskhan]

Why redicule something something someone isn't even sure about, bite that belly if you want I already rolled over

Because I just discovered that the nukes I pay for with my own taxes are not properly aimed at Stockholm just as I thought but at Loperhet and Plougastel-Daoulas (where we make such good strawberries). Ushant beeing out of range, local sheep and bees should be nice. You're not the only one who knows about small diplomatic public secrets and who is eager to share.