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

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."

Comments

Re: $93.8M of my tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

The US dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. 12,192 of them on Syria. - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-president-barack-obama-bomb-map-drone-wars-strikes-20000-pakistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html

Re:More US warmongering

[Kiuas]

When I heard this story on the radio this morning, the most surprising bit was that Syria is responsible for the rise of ISIS.

This is not what I said or meant and I'm pretty sure you know that.

I'm sure last week it was the destabilization of Iraq that was the cause of ISIS.

Yes, this is what happened but the thing is once a state the size of Iraq collapses into quasi-anarchy the conflict does not stay confined to the borders of said ex-state. Without the collapse of Iraq there'd be no isis, and without isis the situation in Syria wouldn't be as messy as it is now. There might and probably still would be a civil war in Syria, but right now that war is made a lot more complicated and bloody by isis, which is opposed by both Assad, Russia and the US but the defeat of which is made more complicated because said 3 factions are also opposed to each other. The US is trying to get rid of isis and Assad, Assad/Russia is trying to get rid of Isis and the rebels, and the rebels are trying to get rid of Assad and isis. There is no easy solution to this mess, because if the US removes Assad from power it's likely that Syria will be in even worse shape than it is now, as it is unclear which faction outside Assad's regime has the skills and the resources to maintain control of Syria.

Backing Assad means backing the sole Russian ally in the region which the US cannot do, but this also means that realistically speaking getting the conflict in Syria contained is extremely difficult, much more so than it would be if this was a war with only 2 sides.

Re:More US warmongering

[Rei]

FYI, it actually was a milk factory. Although Iraq did put up a big sign reading "Baby Milk Factory" after the bombing and other such things for PR purposes. Iraq actually was using milk byproducts for BW research, but at al-Hakam, not Abu Ghuraib.

Baghdad took early steps to protect what remained of the BW physical plant and equipment. During the first Gulf war, the only facilities directly relevant to Iraq’s BW program that were destroyed were the research laboratories at Al Salman and the munitions filling station at Al Muthanna. Neither was critical to the BW program that was centered on Al Hakam. Al Hakam at that time was unknown to the Coalition and therefore was not attacked during the war, unlike the Abu Ghurayb Infant Formula Plant (the Baby Milk Factory) that the Coalition destroyed by bombing in the mistaken belief that it was a key BW facility.

CIA's own assessment.

Re:More US warmongering

[ilguido]

Putin and the people working for him are very good at asking that sort of "question" and that is where this one comes from.

After Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, after Nayirah's testimony, after Afghanistan involvement in 9/11, after a lot of other "facts" that I'm not listing here (including alleged atrocities committed by Gaddafi), I'd say that sort of "question" is quite legitimate.

Re:More US warmongering

[silentcoder]

Nobody else sells nearly as much. But interestingly the top 5 arms dealers in teh world are ALSO the top-5 members of the UN security council and the only countries with veto rights.

Re:More US warmongering

[halivar]

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

Re:More US warmongering

[Archtech]

News is already coming in that the terrorists have launched a big offensive towards the town of Al-Furqalas (known to Google Maps as Al-Furqlus). Surprise, surprise! Turns out Al-Furqalas is just 20 miles - half an hour by the local roads - from the Shayrat Military Airport.

What a lucky coincidence that the terrorists just happened to have all the men, vehicles, weapons, ammunition and supplies to launch a major offensive just when the USA took out the airbase.

And just 20 miles away too!

Re:Why are they so expensive?

[ScentCone]

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.