US Ships launch 60 cruise missiles at Syrian air base

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Prestor Jon**

djones520 wrote:
Crablezworth wrote:

Why bomb the people fighting isis? This makes no sense. Trump just made a massive error in judgement.

Because they used (not for the first time) illegal chemical weapons on a civilian population center.

I'm not sure why this needs to be spelled out. ISIS is not the only "bad" out there.

If you need to, I can paint the picture a little bit for you. Its 2 am. You're awoken by explosions. Your home is shaking, and you gather your baby up in your arms hoping the bombs don't directly hit you. The explosions end, and you breath a sigh of relief. A few minutes later though, your baby starts to shake. You turn the lights on, and notice that his nose is running, he's spasming, and starting to choke. While you're panicking, you start to lose control of your own body. Your eyes begin to hurt, and you've started sweating, despite the cool desert night. All of a sudden you drop your child as your body locks up, and you fall to the ground with seizures. Eventually, you lose consciousness before you suffocate to death.

But hey, the Syrian's fight ISIS on occasion, so there shouldn't be a response to that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tactical_Spam wrote:
And the Donald has lost my support.

I won't get into wars he said. It'll be fun he said...

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!

Yet we don't have any plans for an end game strategy with Syria. Assad uses chemical weapons, we launch conventional missiles. Then....what? It's not the first time Assad has used or been accused of using chemical weapons since the civil war started yet not much has changed and I don't see us invading Syria, forcing regime change, occupying the country to support the new government and spending decades there rebuilding the country.

Chemical weapon attacks are bad but again, not the first instance of this happening in Syria yet neither PotUS that has been in charge when it happened has asked Congress for a declaration of war. Do you think Trump is going to ask Congress to declare war on Syria? I don't think that's likely.

I don't see token strikes that are half measures at best and saber rattling empty rhetoric changing the situation in Syria. We've using that strategy for what, 6 years now?

**Freakazoitt**

BrotherGecko wrote:

I'm not sure what this is trying to show us.

Some aircraft destroyed, some survived. Landing place mostly undamaged, Some barracks burned. Looks like only few rockets (as intended or not) actually hit the base.

**Easy E**

Obama negotiated a removal of Chemical Weapons in Syria with Russian aid. AS long as that illusion had to be maintained, no Chemical Weaposn were used. Now that Obama is gone, Chemical weapons are back ont eh table.

In addition, Trump had to strike the Syrians. Look how much his base (and he himself) bashed Obama when a red-line was corssed but no military action was taken. He press conference the other day was about "crossing lines" and the base's usually response to crossing lines is a military strike. Anything else is weakness. Therefore, Trump had to wag the dog a bit and strike with cruise missiles.

The question in my mind is why Chemical Weapons were used now? What are the Syrians/Russians trying to prove or provoke?

**Prestor Jon**

Easy E wrote:
Obama negotiated a removal of Chemical Weapons in Syria with Russian aid. AS long as that illusion had to be maintained, no Chemical Weaposn were used. Now that Obama is gone, Chemical weapons are back ont eh table.

In addition, Trump had to strike the Syrians. Look how much his base (and he himself) bashed Obama when a red-line was corssed but no military action was taken. He press conference the other day was about "crossing lines" and the base's usually response to crossing lines is a military strike. Anything else is weakness. Therefore, Trump had to wag the dog a bit and strike with cruise missiles.

The question in my mind is why Chemical Weapons were used now? What are the Syrians/Russians trying to prove or provoke?

According to Wikipedia Assad used chemical weapons against opposition forces TEN times during Obama's presidency.

Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War has been confirmed by the United Nations. Deadly attacks during the war included the Ghouta attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the Khan al-Assal attack in the suburbs of Aleppo in March 2013. While no party took responsibility for the chemical attacks, the Syrian Ba'athist military was seen as main suspect, due to a large arsenal of such weapons. A U.N. fact-finding mission and a UNHRC Commission of Inquiry have simultaneously investigated the attacks. The U.N. mission found likely use of the nerve agent sarin in the case of Khan Al-Asal (19 March 2013), Saraqib (29 April 2013), Ghouta (21 August 2013), Jobar (24 August 2013) and Ashrafiyat Sahnaya (25 August 2013). The UNHRC commission later confirmed the use of sarin in the Khan al-Asal, Saraqib and Ghouta attacks, but did not mention the Jobar and the Ashrafiyat Sahnaya attacks. The UNHRC commission also found that the sarin used in the Khan al-Asal attack bore "the same unique hallmarks" as the sarin used in the Ghouta attack and indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to chemicals from the Syrian Army's stockpile. Those attacks prompted the international community to pressure disarmament of the Syrian Armed Forces from chemical weapons, which was executed during 2014. Despite the disarmament process, dozens of incidents with suspected use of chemical weapons followed throughout Syria, mainly blamed on Syrian Ba'athist forces, as well as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and even on Syrian opposition forces.

In August 2016, a confidential report by the United Nations and the OPCW explicitly blamed the Syrian military of Bashar al-Assad for dropping chemical weapons (chlorine bombs) on the towns of Talmenes in April 2014 and Sarmin in March 2015 and ISIS for using sulfur mustard on the town of Marea in August 2015.[1] Several other attacks have been alleged, reported and/or investigated. In 2017, the 2017 Khan Shaykhun chemical attack drew international attention and provoked the first U.S. military action against the Syrian government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

**Dreadwinter**

CptJake wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.
same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.

They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.

For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.

Just one of the ways it is worse.
and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?

Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?

Does sarin?

The answer to both would be no.

In fact, you probably do better with the AK, because you can go by and cap the wounded, dig out those you missed and cap them. With sarin, they either die or don't unless you go in with the AKs to finish off survivors.

You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.

Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?

**Freakazoitt**

In not foolowing what is going on there, but I rememeber, that Assad removed all chemical weapons with UN control. About rumors says that Russia used chemical weapons - that's just crazy. IMHO, it might be chemical weapon storage hit by the "normal" bomb or even installation (with real victims).

**Vaktathi**

Dreadwinter wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
djones520 wrote:

THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TO WAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?

To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.
same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.

They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.

For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.

Just one of the ways it is worse.
and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?

Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?

Does sarin?

The answer to both would be no.

In fact, you probably do better with the AK, because you can go by and cap the wounded, dig out those you missed and cap them. With sarin, they either die or don't unless you go in with the AKs to finish off survivors.

You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.

They only have a high kill rate in very specific instances. If you're in a confined area and receive a high dose, yeah you are done, 100% kill rate. If I stand 10 feet away from you and rock and roll thirty 125 grain 7.62mm bullets travelling at 2400ft/sec into your body, well, we'll probably also have a 100% kill rate.

If we're talking gas being released by shell or canister in an open atmosphere with people of all ages and levels of health, scattered randomly over a given area, you're not going to get a 100% kill rate, just as you wont with the AK either.

Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?

why go through all that killing of prisoners, torture, indiscriminate attacks on civilians with conventional weapons, attacks on hospitals, denial of food and medical care, etc?

**Kap'n Krump**

I said it in the now-locked thread asking whether or not trump will attack Syria, and I'll say it again - I, for, one, am tired of financially supporting middle east wars for going on 14 years now.

And I'm not super stoked about starting up a fresh one, especially with the Russians supporting the other side, and us kind-of allying with ISIS in the process.

**BigWaaagh**

The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.

**CptJake**

Freakazoitt wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:

I'm not sure what this is trying to show us.

Some aircraft destroyed, some survived. Landing place mostly undamaged, Some barracks burned. Looks like only few rockets (as intended or not) actually hit the base.

Runways are a waste of a target. They are typically fixed in hours even if you seed them with antipersonnel mines. Hitting them only makes sense if you need that airfield out of commission for a specific time period in order to conduct another operation.

We hit fuel and ammo bunkers and the other things we meant to hit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:

You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.

Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?

Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.

But you knew that.

Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kap'n Krump wrote:
I said it in the now-locked thread asking whether or not trump will attack Syria, and I'll say it again - I, for, one, am tired of financially supporting middle east wars for going on 14 years now.

And I'm not super stoked about starting up a fresh one, especially with the Russians supporting the other side, and us kind-of allying with ISIS in the process.

Starting a fresh one? So the 1000+ boots on the ground in Syria and the many thousands of bombs dropped BEFORE this strike are just my imagination?

**Vaktathi**

BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians

I mean...again, burying them alive, blowing them up with explosives, starving them to death, denying them medical care, shooting them, torturing them, etc was better? That wasnt worth going to war over?

inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

Nobody is talking about appeasement, nobody is talking about just giving Assad what he wants. People are talking about how absurd it is that chemical weapons are some sort of uncrossable red line when none of the above was, and that we dont seem to have any plan or goal in any of this, and we've seen where that rodeo goes more than once in recent years.

This isn't a total war or nothing situation. This is a violation of one of the world's tenants and needed a firm response. I don't call 100 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.

again, why is a chemical attack worthy of this, but starving these people to death, bulldozing them alive, blowing them up, torturing them in prisons, mass executions by rifle and hand grenade, etc was not?

**BigWaaagh**

re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig

9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.

This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.

**Prestor Jon**

BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.

Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.

We waited until the ELEVENTH instance of a chemical weapons attack in a conflict that has been ongoing for SIX YEARS to launch cruise missiles at an AIRFIELD. I'm sure cratering a runway with missiles will totally scare Assad out of using chemical weapons for a TWELFTH time. Good thing Trump taught him a lesson now.

**BigWaaagh**

Prestor Jon wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.

Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.

**Prestor Jon**

BigWaaagh wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.

Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.

It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.

**Xenomancers**

Easy E wrote:
Obama negotiated a removal of Chemical Weapons in Syria with Russian aid. AS long as that illusion had to be maintained, no Chemical Weaposn were used. Now that Obama is gone, Chemical weapons are back ont eh table.

In addition, Trump had to strike the Syrians. Look how much his base (and he himself) bashed Obama when a red-line was corssed but no military action was taken. He press conference the other day was about "crossing lines" and the base's usually response to crossing lines is a military strike. Anything else is weakness. Therefore, Trump had to wag the dog a bit and strike with cruise missiles.

The question in my mind is why Chemical Weapons were used now? What are the Syrians/Russians trying to prove or provoke?

You'll have trouble answering that question as the Syrians have nothing to gain from using chemical weapons at this point. They are winning their war - the have the Russian Air-force assisting them. Plus the damage that was caused by the Sarin could easily have been done by another airstrike with conventional weapons (as in it wasn't even that deadly of a hit). No evidence points at this being a deliberate chemical attack. The answer from the Syrian government makes the most sense. A conventional air-raid must have hit a Sarin stockpile of some kind and released the chemical that way. Multiple strikes against the same town and only 1 produced Sarin gas (supposedly). This is very very weak stuff. If not for the pictures of dying babies - this would just sound like another day in the history of the Syrian civil war.

**Dreadwinter**

CptJake wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:

You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.

Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?

Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.

But you knew that.

Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?

Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life. What are the odds of having the antidote within reach, or within a 10 minute drive, from the targeted area?

If you want to go down the route of "Thats not what you said!" I will say I misspoke and that what I said was incredibly vague. My bad. I had just woken up and not made it to the caffeine yet.

**Vaktathi**

BigWaaagh wrote:
re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.

So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig

9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.

This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.

It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.

Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?

**BigWaaagh**

Prestor Jon wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.

Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.

It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.

Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.

**Vaktathi**

Dreadwinter wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:

You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.

Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?

Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.

But you knew that.

Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?

Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life.

How is this any diffetent than a bullet?

Yeah if you take a certain concentration of Sarin or VX, it is 100% fatal. Taking a bullet to the brain is 100% fatal too. Yeah a lower dose will cause permanent terrible injury, so will bullets striking a non-immediately-lethal target.

**BigWaaagh**

Vaktathi wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig

9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.

This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.

Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?

There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.

**Frazzled**

BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.

Its strange. I haven't heard any reports of China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, France, UK, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen, Qatar, South Africa, Canada or any other nation also launching attacks. Its weird being its a crime against humanity and all.

**Vaktathi**

BigWaaagh wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig

9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.

This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.

Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?

There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.

I mean...you can state so, but that doesnt make it so, at least, in relation to the other things happening in Syria.

What about gas is so much worse than bulldozing people alive, bombing them with incendiary devices and explosives, starving them to death, torture, killing of prisoners, etc?

The big thing with chemical weapons is that they dont really do anything conventional weapons dont but add costs to both attacker and defender, so everyone agrees to just not use them, but fundamentally its hard to see any moral issue that makes gas so much worse than being exploded, buried alive, bleeding out after multiple gunshot wounds for hours, etc.

**BigWaaagh**

Frazzled wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.

Its strange. I haven't heard any reports of China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, France, UK, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen, Qatar, South Africa, Canada or any other nation also launching attacks. Its weird being its a crime against humanity and all.

Is that your litmus? Really?

**Dreadwinter**

Vaktathi wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:

You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.

Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?

Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.

But you knew that.

Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?

Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life.
How is this any diffetent than a bullet?

Yeah if you take a certain concentration of Sarin or VX, it is 100% fatal. Taking a bullet to the brain is 100% fatal too. Yeah a lower dose will cause permanent terrible injury, so will bullets striking a non-immediately-lethal target.

Because a bullet takes aim. You are not going to get a 100% headshot all of the time. I don't care how much you watch The Walking Dead. Also, you are not going to die from a bullet to the brain 100% of the time.

**CptJake**

Dreadwinter wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:

You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.

Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?

Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.

But you knew that.

Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?

Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life. What are the odds of having the antidote within reach, or within a 10 minute drive, from the targeted area?

If you want to go down the route of "Thats not what you said!" I will say I misspoke and that what I said was incredibly vague. My bad. I had just woken up and not made it to the caffeine yet.

And yet, people survived this attack...

Are you now under the belief Assad would use less than weapons grade sarin? Or can you admit, even weapons grade sarin, when used in something other than a lab environment, doesn't have 100% kill rate?

As for causing serious permanent damage, yeah, but so do bullets and bomb fragments and incendiaries.

I get that chem weapons are taboo, but they are not close to as destructive as some folks want to believe. Temp, wind, humidity and other factors all affect the effectiveness of even weapons grade sarin.

**BigWaaagh**

Vaktathi wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig

9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.

This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.

Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?

There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.
I mean...you can state so, but that doesnt make it so, at least, in relation to the other things happening in Syria.

What about gas is so much worse than bulldozing people alive, bombing them with incendiary devices and explosives, starving them to death, torture, killing of prisoners, etc?

The big thing with chemical weapons is that they dont really do anything conventional weapons dont but add costs to both attacker and defender, so everyone agrees to just not use them, but fundamentally its hard to see any moral issue that makes gas so much worse than being exploded, buried alive, bleeding out after multiple gunshot wounds for hours, etc.

No, actually, I can state so because it is so by international declarations, treaties and agreements. THIS IS FACT! WMD's get their own classification and treatment. THIS IS FACT! You're trying to draw, what, a "A is as bad as B, so what's the difference" argument here? Give me a break.

**Vaktathi**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:

You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.

Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?

Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.

But you knew that.

Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?

Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life.
How is this any diffetent than a bullet?

Yeah if you take a certain concentration of Sarin or VX, it is 100% fatal. Taking a bullet to the brain is 100% fatal too. Yeah a lower dose will cause permanent terrible injury, so will bullets striking a non-immediately-lethal target.

Because a bullet takes aim. You are not going to get a 100% headshot all of the time. I don't care how much you watch The Walking Dead.

Thats why we have a 30 round magazine and a 600rpm rate of fire.

Also, you are not going to die from a bullet to the brain 100% of the time.

Barring non penetration of the skull, an AK bullet is going to be as close to 100% lethal as a high dose of Sarin.

Ultimately, again however, Sarin is not 100% lethal outside of high concentrations and confined areas, and what difference does that lethality rating make? A 500lb iron bomb is also 100% lethal within a certain radius, arguably moreso than the AK or Sarin. Not seeing where the lethality is so important, and Sarins lethality on an open battlefield is being grossly over exaggerated

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigWaaagh wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig

9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.

This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.

Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?

There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.
I mean...you can state so, but that doesnt make it so, at least, in relation to the other things happening in Syria.

What about gas is so much worse than bulldozing people alive, bombing them with incendiary devices and explosives, starving them to death, torture, killing of prisoners, etc?

The big thing with chemical weapons is that they dont really do anything conventional weapons dont but add costs to both attacker and defender, so everyone agrees to just not use them, but fundamentally its hard to see any moral issue that makes gas so much worse than being exploded, buried alive, bleeding out after multiple gunshot wounds for hours, etc.

No, actually, I can state so because it is so by international declarations, treaties and agreements. THIS IS FACT! WMD's get their own classification and treatment. THIS IS FACT! You're trying to draw, what, a "A is as bad as B, so what's the difference" argument here? Give me a break.

I'm not arguing against the fact that such weapons are banned by many treaties and agreements, I'm stating that a whole bunch of other things Assad has done are just as bad and against just as many treaties and agreements and declarations. What makes gas so different than those things that its worth going to war over when those others, that are just as bad or worse in terms of effects and scale and are against just as many agreements, were not?

**Frazzled**

BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.

Its strange. I haven't heard any reports of China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, France, UK, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen, Qatar, South Africa, Canada or any other nation also launching attacks. Its weird being its a crime against humanity and all.

Is that your litmus? Really?

It is for anyone arguing that we need to do it for humanity or whatever bs.

**BigWaaagh**

Frazzled wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
BigWaaagh wrote:
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.

This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.

Its strange. I haven't heard any reports of China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, France, UK, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen, Qatar, South Africa, Canada or any other nation also launching attacks. Its weird being its a crime against humanity and all.

Is that your litmus? Really?
It is for anyone arguing that we need to do it for humanity or whatever bs.

So which is it? Humanity or BS...or are you stating humanitarian action is BS?