Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States

US Strikes Syrian Base With Over 50 Tomahawk Missiles (nbcnews.com) 755

mi writes: Two U.S. warships in the Mediterranean Sea fired 59 Tomahawk missiles intended for a single target -- Shayrat Airfield in Homs province in western Syria, the Defense Department said. That's the airfield from which the United States believes the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad fired chemical weapons on Tuesday. There was no immediate word on casualties. U.S. officials told NBC News that people were not targeted and that aircraft and infrastructure at the site, including the runway, were hit. Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago." The report also notes that the strike "dramatically expands U.S. military involvement in Syria and exposes the United States to heightened risk of direct confrontation with Russia and Iran, both backing Assad in his attempt to crush his opposition."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Strikes Syrian Base With Over 50 Tomahawk Missiles

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07, 2017 @12:31AM (#54189513)

    It was only a matter of time before Tump started another war in the middle east.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07, 2017 @12:34AM (#54189527)

      Initial reports are a kindergarten and two hospitals were hit.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Suomi-Poika ( 453539 )

        You forgot to mention that also two wedding parties were hit, all dead.

    • by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @12:53AM (#54189585)

      Appropriate and measured response to the nerve gassing of innocent civilians two days ago. A clear message from the West to psycho Assad and trouble maker Putin.

    • It was only a matter of time before Tump started another war in the middle east.

      America's been at war there since 2014 [wikipedia.org].

      What is the point? If you're going to get involved in a military conflict, you should have a clear objective, and get it done quickly. What we've done is allow the war to drag on with no clear objective. What a waste.

      • Trump has said before that he considered Obama weak for not responding to chemical weapons in Syria. So my theory is, it's about looking tougher than Obama. He'll tell us it's about protecting muslim children, but that doesn't quite ring true.
    • by halivar ( 535827 ) <bfelgerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday April 07, 2017 @06:47AM (#54190457)

      Wasn't he supposed to be a Russian sleeper agent, or something? Slashdot has been telling me so for months, now.

  • by Nova77 ( 613150 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @12:49AM (#54189579)

    Neat, more than $93M ($1.59M unit cost according to wikipedia) gone in a single (non war related) strike.
    Thanks goodness he saved money by cutting the budget of EPA and NSF! /s

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @01:31AM (#54189695) Journal
    Why are Tomahawk missiles so expensive? Can't the US get a bulk discount at this point?
    • by Woldscum ( 1267136 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @02:02AM (#54189757)

      Look up what a Tomahawk cruise missile actually is. It is not a rocket. It is a self guided plane powered by a jet engine. A small unmanned Kamikaze that guides itself by looking at the ground and has a 1000 lbs. bomb built in.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @08:54AM (#54191009)

        Look up what a Tomahawk cruise missile actually is. It is not a rocket. It is a self guided plane powered by a jet engine. A small unmanned Kamikaze that guides itself by looking at the ground and has a 1000 lbs. bomb built in.

        For this strike, they used the newer type "E" flavor, which have two-way satellite communication features, rather than being strictly program, fire, forget.

        That allows them to be re-targeted while in flight (and some of those flights can be lengthy) in reaction to revised intel about, say, the presence of someone or something in a spot they don't want to hit.

        Interestingly, it took the two destroyers a good half an hour to get all of these in the air, so the early units actually loitered above the target, doing laps until the rest of them could catch up, and then all were used on their targets within just a couple of minutes.

    • by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @03:16AM (#54189941)

      Why are Tomahawk missiles so expensive?

      What price are you charging for yours?

  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @01:34AM (#54189705)

    These actions seem to be yet another thing that run contrary to his rhetoric. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, I'm just saying, he sure doesn't seem to be a man of his word.

  • by cryptizard ( 2629853 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @04:50AM (#54190143)
    Good thing everyone voted against Clinton and stopped her from starting another war in the middle east. Oh wait...
  • Are you quite sure? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @07:33AM (#54190617)

    'Slashdot reader Humbubba shares a similar report from Washington Post, adding that Thursday's strike was the "first direct American assault on the government of President Bashar al-Assad since that country's civil war began six years ago."'

    That's odd. Here was I thinking that the NATO air strike on Syrian Army positions last September, which killed about 100 Syrian soldiers and wounded about as many more, was a "direct American assault". It was immediately followed by a mass terrorist attack that overran the Syrian Army positions - which had previously held out stubbornly for years. Almost as if the terrorists had known about the air strike before it happened.

    Of course, maybe some Americans think that killing a mere 100 soldiers and wounding another 100 doesn't really amount to an "assault". After all, they are Asian Muslims, aren't they?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday April 07, 2017 @08:26AM (#54190853) Journal

    In other news this morning:

    98,000 jobs were added last month. Economists had been anticipating a gain of about 180,000.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]

  • By "get out" I mean no military intervention, no foreign aid (except for emergencies like natural disasters), no weapons sales, and no immigration by mid-eastern nationals (except for very select cases).

    1) Money, and weapons, always end up in the wrong hands.
    Hamas is getting their money from Qatar. The US gave Qatar $11 billion. We might as well have given the money directly to Hamas. ISIS is using US military equipment. There are many more examples.

    2) The US will be blamed, and hated, even more than it already is, by everybody in the world, especially Muslims.
    Any military intervention will be called an invasion. The US will be accused of killing civilians to steal the oil of whatever mid-east nation we are "helping" this week. If we help tribe A, tribe B will hate us even more. Then tribe A will hate us as soon as we stop helping them. All casualties will be blamed on the US, even if most casualties are the result of Muslims killing other Muslims. And there is always that one-in-a-million soldier that does something completely out of line, and that is all the media will focus on.

    3) The US can no longer afford the outrageous expense.
    The US is drowning in debt. Our credit has been downgrading. Our economy is in the toilet. Yet we borrow more billions from China, to give to mid-eastern Muslim who hate us.

    4) There are no "good guys"
    Does it really matter if Syria, or Iraq, or whatever, is ran by insane Sunis, or equally insane Shites? Our friends today, are our enemies tomorrow. I believe both Saddam Hussan, and Osama bin Ladan where our buddies at one time. Between Assad and ISIS, who is the good guy? They all seem like murdering thugs, why pick sides?

    5) Even if you win, you lose.
    Over ten years, and I don't even know how many billions of dollars, or thousands of lives, or how much suffering, in Iraq. And now Iraq is being overrun by ISIS. Even before ISIS, it was non-stop terrorist attacks. If we stop ISIS than what? Peace for two weeks?

    6) Other than buying oil, the US has no business there.
    Clearly the US does not want another nation interfering in our politics. In only stands to reason that other nations do want the US interfering in their politics. The US may have good intentions, but other nations will not see it that way.

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"

Working...