tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,187
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 14, 2017 11:15:04 GMT -5
But how does that have any relevance to whether the "reason" for using them is accurate? That makes zero sense.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 14, 2017 11:18:07 GMT -5
One time, old missiles have no relevance as to whether the reason for launching the attack was what actually happened. Unloading them, transporting to where they are disassembled, then doing the disassembly, is way more costly than shooting them off. So? Again, not relevant to the issue of whether the Assad government was actually responsible for the chemical attack.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 12:02:02 GMT -5
Unloading them, transporting to where they are disassembled, then doing the disassembly, is way more costly than shooting them off. So? Again, not relevant to the issue of whether the Assad government was actually responsible for the chemical attack. How do you know that they were US cruise missiles and not Russian ?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 14, 2017 12:17:27 GMT -5
So? Again, not relevant to the issue of whether the Assad government was actually responsible for the chemical attack. How do you know that they were US cruise missiles and not Russian ? I am not sure I have a clear idea of what you mean here. Which "missiles" are "they"? Virgil Showlion's link provides this: ... the report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity. What is being offered is a preface question to the US attack on the airbase, i.e. "What actually happened?". I am open to a discussion of that question. Was it a wise move to attack the base if the Assad government carried out a chemical attack via an aircraft dropped munition? Difficult question. Was it a wise move to attack the base if the Assad government did not carry out a chemical attack via an aircraft dropped munition? Not so difficult of a question.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 12:28:22 GMT -5
How do you know that they were US cruise missiles and not Russian ? I am not sure I have a clear idea of what you mean here. Which "missiles" are "they"? Virgil Showlion 's link provides this: ... the report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity. What is being offered is a preface question to the US attack on the airbase, i.e. " What actually happened?". I am open to a discussion of that question. Was it a wise move to attack the base if the Assad government carried out a chemical attack via an aircraft dropped munition? Difficult question. Was it a wise move to attack the base if the Assad government did not carry out a chemical attack via an aircraft dropped munition? Not so difficult of a question. We will never know what actually happened. The base was just a cost effective military target. My answer to Virgil that started our discussion was simple humor. I consider the attack as military adventurism. Did next to nothing, cost next to nothing. It does make a statement of possibly less talk and more action by this administration.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 14, 2017 13:39:14 GMT -5
... It does make a statement of possibly less talk and more action by this administration. Or is it less thought and more knee jerk reaction?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 13:43:13 GMT -5
... It does make a statement of possibly less talk and more action by this administration. Or is it less thought and more knee jerk reaction? Going by the size of the operation, I'm not sure it could be called a little toe jerk action.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 14, 2017 13:56:47 GMT -5
Or is it less thought and more knee jerk reaction? Going by the size of the operation, I'm not sure it could be called a little toe jerk action. And therefore not much of a statement, more like ?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 14, 2017 14:04:42 GMT -5
One time, old missiles have no relevance as to whether the reason for launching the attack was what actually happened. Unloading them, transporting to where they are disassembled, then doing the disassembly, is way more costly than shooting them off. So, do you your garbage in the woods or the ocean, because it's easier and less costly than recycling?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 15:04:02 GMT -5
Going by the size of the operation, I'm not sure it could be called a little toe jerk action. And therefore not much of a statement... LOL! Almost the end of the world according to some.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 10:28:12 GMT -5
LOL! Almost the end of the world according to some. Just another nail in the coffin of Congress's power to decide whether or not to declare war. Very troubling to me, but of course that horse has been in the process of leaving the barn for some time. I have to agree with this. The commander and chief title has had it's limits being extended for some time now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 10:57:42 GMT -5
Unloading them, transporting to where they are disassembled, then doing the disassembly, is way more costly than shooting them off. So, do you your garbage in the woods or the ocean, because it's easier and less costly than recycling? All paper/cardboard is burned. All plastic is burned in a shallow pit. Non-burn items are dropped at recycle.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 17, 2017 11:21:44 GMT -5
Did any one notice the lack of damage to the Syria airport almost no planes damaged. Like four airplanes,, maybe they were junk! This couldn't possibly be just a show for the American people ,, could it be?? Annnd, Russia really did not protest that much!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 17, 2017 11:29:43 GMT -5
One time, old missiles have no relevance as to whether the reason for launching the attack was what actually happened. Unloading them, transporting to where they are disassembled, then doing the disassembly, is way more costly than shooting them off. Wait a minute,, weren't the Mother Of all Bombs getting old also!! Can Trump daisychain the old MOAB's together do a run on North Korea, Now if we can do a super long stretched verision of a C130.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 17, 2017 11:33:58 GMT -5
Did any one notice the lack of damage to the Syria airport almost no planes damaged. Like four airplanes,, maybe they were junk! This couldn't possibly be just a show for the American people ,, could it be?? Annnd, Russia really did not protest that much!! Reality Television.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Apr 17, 2017 11:36:40 GMT -5
Did any one notice the lack of damage to the Syria airport almost no planes damaged. Like four airplanes,, maybe they were junk! This couldn't possibly be just a show for the American people ,, could it be?? Annnd, Russia really did not protest that much!! Reality Television. I thought it might have been closer to a magic show, where some one pulls the rabbit out of that hat!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 11:42:16 GMT -5
Unloading them, transporting to where they are disassembled, then doing the disassembly, is way more costly than shooting them off. Wait a minute,, weren't the Mother Of all Bombs getting old also!! Can Trump daisychain the old MOAB's together do a run on North Korea, Now if we can do a super long stretched verision of a C130. MOAB actually stands for "massive ordnance air blast". Designed and made in '02 or '03 I think. It was the first combat usage. There's only like 10/15 built
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 17, 2017 11:57:16 GMT -5
Wait a minute,, weren't the Mother Of all Bombs getting old also!! Can Trump daisychain the old MOAB's together do a run on North Korea, Now if we can do a super long stretched verision of a C130. MOAB actually stands for "massive ordnance air blast". ... Hmmm? I am confused attempting to reconcile the idea that what was used in Afghanistan was something that had an "... air blast" with the idea that it was used to destroy tunnels.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 12:05:23 GMT -5
MOAB actually stands for "massive ordnance air blast". ... Hmmm? I am confused attempting to reconcile the idea that what was used in Afghanistan was something that had an "... air blast" with the idea that it was used to destroy tunnels. Air blast bombs explode before contact. The shock wave does the killing/damage.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjYnqGQ_avTAhXGZiYKHWk4CGoQFghCMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphysics.info%2Fshock%2F&usg=AFQjCNHXycU8rep2zHKYRINKB6ndzfzuGA&bvm=bv.152479541,d.eWE
•high explosive, supersonic combustion, detonation speeds measured in thousands of m/s ◦TNT (trinitrotoluene) 6,900 m/s ◦NG (nitroglycerine) 7,700 m/s — active ingredient in dynamite ◦TATB (triaminotrinitrobenzene) 7,350 m/s — used to trigger nuclear weapons, extremely insensitive to accidental detonation ◦RDX (research department explosive, cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine) 8,750 m/s — active ingredient in plastic explosives (e.g.; C-4) ◦HMX (high melt explosive, octogen, octahydro-1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocane) 9,100 m/s — military explosive
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 17, 2017 12:12:16 GMT -5
Hmmm? I am confused attempting to reconcile the idea that what was used in Afghanistan was something that had an "... air blast" with the idea that it was used to destroy tunnels. Air blast bombs explode before contact. The shock wave does the killing/damage. ...
Does the shock wave collapse tunnels or just send air/fire waves(?) through them to kill those hiding in them?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2017 12:21:00 GMT -5
Air blast bombs explode before contact. The shock wave does the killing/damage. ...
Does the shock wave collapse tunnels or just send air/fire waves(?) through them to kill those hiding in them? It can collapse fractured rock if close enough. The supersonic compression wave will pass down all the tunnels and kill every one within. There are papers published that show the math. It does work.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 17, 2017 12:23:16 GMT -5
Does the shock wave collapse tunnels or just send air/fire waves(?) through them to kill those hiding in them? It can collapse fractured rock if close enough. The supersonic compression wave will pass down all the tunnels and kill every one within. There are papers published that show the math. It does work. Wonder if tunnels were left intact on this one and the long term effect if they remain. Seems to be no shortage of new fighters to replace those killed.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 17, 2017 19:10:31 GMT -5
The mindset to build things to destroy is shockingly counter intuitive. I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that it's vastly easier to destroy things than to create them.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 18, 2017 9:07:52 GMT -5
The mindset to build things to destroy is shockingly counter intuitive. I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that it's vastly easier to destroy things than to create them. Story time. I had cut down the zip line already due to age and it was going up in a new location. It was time to remove the platform. I can tell you it is vastly easier to build a platform under you than to destroy a platform you are standing on thirty some feet off the ground. At least it is easier on the nerves.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Apr 18, 2017 10:58:28 GMT -5
It can collapse fractured rock if close enough. The supersonic compression wave will pass down all the tunnels and kill every one within. There are papers published that show the math. It does work. Sometimes the minutia of how weapons of war work is chillingly fascinating. I never forgot hearing about how many types of rifle rounds work such that they are not to hit and bore a hole, but to hit, flatten and "tumble", so they will ramble through a body or down an extremity, ripping it apart for maximum tissue destruction. They are not even necessarily to kill- just to seriously injure, so that the soldier is taken out, and causes a burden in that others must then attend to him. Most of us spend our time trying to devise how to make things work, or to invent and build things that are better. The mindset to build things to destroy is shockingly counter intuitive. Unless, of course, one is a sculptor.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 11:56:17 GMT -5
It can collapse fractured rock if close enough. The supersonic compression wave will pass down all the tunnels and kill every one within. There are papers published that show the math. It does work. Wonder if tunnels were left intact on this one and the long term effect if they remain. Seems to be no shortage of new fighters to replace those killed. It slowly becomes harder to recruit new fighters, when the previously safe hidey hole complexes, are not safe anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 12:00:16 GMT -5
It can collapse fractured rock if close enough. The supersonic compression wave will pass down all the tunnels and kill every one within. There are papers published that show the math. It does work. Sometimes the minutia of how weapons of war work is chillingly fascinating. I never forgot hearing about how many types of rifle rounds work such that they are not to hit and bore a hole, but to hit, flatten and "tumble", so they will ramble through a body or down an extremity, ripping it apart for maximum tissue destruction. They are not even necessarily to kill- just to seriously injure, so that the soldier is taken out, and causes a burden in that others must then attend to him. Most of us spend our time trying to devise how to make things work, or to invent and build things that are better. The mindset to build things to destroy is shockingly counter intuitive. Unless you were in the business of weapons. Then it's all physics. Do a search on how "Barnes" bullets work.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 12:02:17 GMT -5
I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that it's vastly easier to destroy things than to create them. Story time. I had cut down the zip line already due to age and it was going up in a new location. It was time to remove the platform. I can tell you it is vastly easier to build a platform under you than to destroy a platform you are standing on thirty some feet off the ground. At least it is easier on the nerves. Throw a cable around the main supports. Pull down with truck/tractor/winch. You are not an engineer, for sure.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,508
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 18, 2017 12:03:04 GMT -5
Wonder if tunnels were left intact on this one and the long term effect if they remain. Seems to be no shortage of new fighters to replace those killed. It slowly becomes harder to recruit new fighters, when the previously safe hidey hole complexes, are not safe anymore. Sounds good. Wonder how true it will prove to be.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 3:33:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 12:05:27 GMT -5
I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that it's vastly easier to destroy things than to create them. I would like to agree, however the science and engineering - not to mention prowess required in manufacturing- makes me differ. Modern weaponry has a chillingly advanced scientific component behind it. You have no idea. I would love to talk about weapons that are still classified from 15/20 ears ago.
|
|