After chemical weapons killed about 100 people.
Bombing Al Qaida manufacture of Sarin is legal.
Topic: BGM-109 Tomahawk epic fail. (Read 2419 times)
Bombing Al Qaida manufacture of Sarin is legal.
After chemical weapons killed about 100 people. More precisely, it seems to 87. Yes, it's a tragedy, but how many people died after the bombing, Russian Aleppo? And in other cities! What's the difference than I did. Every life is precious! It seems to me that if the Americans did not showed themselves to be weak then this tragedy would not have happened.
What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?
$500.000.000
Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT
Airport is operating, as reported.
$500.000.000
Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT
Airport is operating, as reported.
Your math is off. The missiles cost the US 832,000 USD each. With 23 misses that cost the american tax payer 19 million.. OUCH!
What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?
$500.000.000
Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT
Airport is operating, as reported.
$500.000.000
Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT
Airport is operating, as reported.
Your math is off. The missiles cost the US 832,000 USD each. With 23 misses that cost the american tax payer 19 million.. OUCH!
It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?
By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.
I think you are giving Trump's supporters too much credit here. If anything happens Trump will keep escalating, that's his personality. Anyone testing the US with this administration is just asking for it.
What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?
$500.000.000
Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT
Airport is operating, as reported.
$500.000.000
Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.
http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT
Airport is operating, as reported.
Your math is off. The missiles cost the US 832,000 USD each. With 23 misses that cost the american tax payer 19 million.. OUCH!
It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?
By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.
It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?
By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.
Lets not talk about history (korea war, vietnam war).
What about afghanistan iraq under bush? Iraq-afghanistan-libya-syria under obama?
I think the russian bots have a software bug :S
It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?
By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.
According to the US Defence Secretary James Mattis, the American missile attacks destroyed 20% of the active aircraft in the possession of the Syrian Air Force. I know that the ISIS and the Al Qaeda will be rejoicing at this news.
The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.
Is it the planes? The MiG 23 was put on the wing in 1969. It's junk. It seems to me that missiles were more expensive than the damage which they have caused Assad.The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.
The missiles may be more expensive than the aircraft, but they did the purpose. No matter how old these aircraft were, some of them were used for dropping barrel bombs and other explosive devices. The Americans wanted to get rid of them, at any cost. The rebels were also finding the life quite tough as a result of the bombings. So I'd say it was $500 million well spent.
What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?
~ snip ~
Airport is operating, as reported.
~ snip ~
Airport is operating, as reported.
From what I know the tomahawk is "only" some $500k a piece. However, I may be wrong and the price is not important.
I was also "impressed" by the number of missiles shot. But I understand. They have to be used. And for good reason.
This way the american tax payers (and possibly later the Syrian oil) will have to pay for newer and better technology.
The fact they destroyed anything is of tiniest importance. The news reports will tell the "truth" that matters (did you see "Wag the Dog"?).
More in the range of 800.000$ per tomahawk.
So less then 50 million.
Donald just increased the defense budget by over 50 billion. ^^"
So much fail from our russian bots. It makes panda babys cry.
What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?
~ snip ~
Airport is operating, as reported.
~ snip ~
Airport is operating, as reported.
From what I know the tomahawk is "only" some $500k a piece. However, I may be wrong and the price is not important.
I was also "impressed" by the number of missiles shot. But I understand. They have to be used. And for good reason.
This way the american tax payers (and possibly later the Syrian oil) will have to pay for newer and better technology.
The fact they destroyed anything is of tiniest importance. The news reports will tell the "truth" that matters (did you see "Wag the Dog"?).
According to the US Defence Secretary James Mattis, the American missile attacks destroyed 20% of the active aircraft in the possession of the Syrian Air Force. I know that the ISIS and the Al Qaeda will be rejoicing at this news.
The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.
Is it the planes? The MiG 23 was put on the wing in 1969. It's junk. It seems to me that missiles were more expensive than the damage which they have caused Assad.The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.
The missiles may be more expensive than the aircraft, but they did the purpose. No matter how old these aircraft were, some of them were used for dropping barrel bombs and other explosive devices. The Americans wanted to get rid of them, at any cost. The rebels were also finding the life quite tough as a result of the bombings. So I'd say it was $500 million well spent.
According to the US Defence Secretary James Mattis, the American missile attacks destroyed 20% of the active aircraft in the possession of the Syrian Air Force. I know that the ISIS and the Al Qaeda will be rejoicing at this news.
The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.
Is it the planes? The MiG 23 was put on the wing in 1969. It's junk. It seems to me that missiles were more expensive than the damage which they have caused Assad. The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.
According to the US Defence Secretary James Mattis, the American missile attacks destroyed 20% of the active aircraft in the possession of the Syrian Air Force. I know that the ISIS and the Al Qaeda will be rejoicing at this news.
The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.
The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.
Late on 06 april 2017, starting around 8:40PM Easter Time (4:40 a.m., April 7, in Syria), the United States military launched 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) at the Shayrat Airfield in Syria's Homs governorate. Targets struck included the airfield's aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars. The missiles were launched from U.S. Navy destroyers (USS Ross (DDG 71) and USS Porter (DDG 78)) located in the eastern Mediterranean. The strike came in retaliation for a chemical attack on April 4 in Khan Sheikhoun which killed scores of civilians earlier. According to the DoD, Shayrat Airfield had been used to store chemical weapons and Syrian air forces. The U.S. intelligence community assessed that aircraft from Shayrat conducted the chemical weapons attack on April 4. The strike was intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again. Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line.
You are mistaken. A large part of the Syrian Air Force's offensive capability against the ISIS is now neutralized. The ISIS has reported gains against the SAA in the province of Homs, where the attack occurred. The Americans have succeeded in shifting the momentum back to the ISIS.
And if ISIS somehow got hold on toxics, by conquering some former governmental supply? That itches me. Some suicide fanatic entered the civilian urban settlement, pulled the leash of from a can of chemicals. Days later millions of dollars got wasted, with a precision that dates back into the seventies of warhead development (below thirty percent hit rate) just to aid them by hindering air force strikes against their ground forces, where they are strong. ISIS doesn't own the manpower nor the material or expertise for airplane operations.What if the western got tricked by them?
The most important thing about this, is that US army and their government do not care about military spendings.
If they need to reach some goal, like sending rockets to a particular place, they dont hesitate and dont look at the costs.
This kind of behaviour may lead to great military domination as a country, but on the other hand would be expensive, and only wealthier countries can afford this kind of plan.
The amount of dollars going on the Unites States military is really big, that is also another reason why they dont care about the price- the money comes to them at regular basis.
Im sure that Russia doesn't care a lot about cost of military operations.
You are wrong. Russia is not a rich state and it will not be able to Finance the war. Compare budgets of the USA and Russia. The Soviet Union fell apart after 10 years of war in Afghanistan. Russian lead multiple wars. In Syria and Ukraine. If they lose Syria and there goes the oil and gas to Europe, Russia will collapse in 2-3 years. If they need to reach some goal, like sending rockets to a particular place, they dont hesitate and dont look at the costs.
This kind of behaviour may lead to great military domination as a country, but on the other hand would be expensive, and only wealthier countries can afford this kind of plan.
The amount of dollars going on the Unites States military is really big, that is also another reason why they dont care about the price- the money comes to them at regular basis.
Im sure that Russia doesn't care a lot about cost of military operations.
The most important thing about this, is that US army and their government do not care about military spendings.
If they need to reach some goal, like sending rockets to a particular place, they dont hesitate and dont look at the costs.
This kind of behaviour may lead to great military domination as a country, but on the other hand would be expensive, and only wealthier countries can afford this kind of plan.
The amount of dollars going on the Unites States military is really big, that is also another reason why they dont care about the price- the money comes to them at regular basis.
Im sure that Russia doesn't care a lot about cost of military operations.
If they need to reach some goal, like sending rockets to a particular place, they dont hesitate and dont look at the costs.
This kind of behaviour may lead to great military domination as a country, but on the other hand would be expensive, and only wealthier countries can afford this kind of plan.
The amount of dollars going on the Unites States military is really big, that is also another reason why they dont care about the price- the money comes to them at regular basis.
Im sure that Russia doesn't care a lot about cost of military operations.
Where are pictures of hitted civilians from the village near the airfeld?
Jump to: