by "OPPOsaurus WRX" (opposaurus)
Published 04/14/2017 at 08:44
by "OPPOsaurus WRX" (opposaurus)
Published 04/14/2017 at 08:44
No Tags
STARS: 0
posting hear cuz the rest of the internet is scary.
A lot of people were saying the bombs dropped in Syria were too small / not the right type for the job. With Afghanistan, Trump didn’t want to leave room for those types of comments.
"random001" (random001)
04/14/2017 at 08:49, STARS: 0
That thing is cool.
"Rust and Dust - Oppositelock Forever" (rustanddust)
04/14/2017 at 09:08, STARS: 0
Different circumstances/objectives with the missions, too.
Syria was an above ground target, I honestly think we were trying to take out assets other than the runway (buildings/fuel & munitions storage/aircraft/radar & communications), which we did. We couldn’t really run any flight missions to deliver the ordinance as Syria is bristling with Russian anti air defense systems, as well as Russian and Syrian fighters patrolling and flying sorties. This left us with cruise missiles as the best option.
Afghanistan was a below ground target. Tomahawks would’ve made some holes in the dirt, but not have had a concussive force to disturb subterranean assets. As far as I know, the US and allies are the only airborne assets in Afghanistan, and presumably the only anti-air systems as well (save for some decades old Soviet anti air guns that are probably ineffective against most targets). We also have airbases in country in Afghanistan, where we have none in Syria. The MOAB we dropped in Afghanistan requires a cargo plane to deliver, which probably would’ve been an awkward flight from (presumably) Iraq, across the majority of Syria, and back again.
Essentially, it was a “right tool for the job” decision, and one presumably made by generals, not politicians.