Defending against a large scale Tomahawk strike on land targets?

[jojo]

We did not witness any participation by the french airforce

 

Superior ECM and stealth missiles :megalol:

 

Seriously, on one hand they claim they didn't act, on the other they say they didn't saw the missiles. Normal if they didn't turn their radar on, isn't it ?

[Hummingbird]

71+

 

Of those 32, most of them hit the sand... :music_whistling:

 

NATO likes to show destroyed targets but has not yet announced anything specifically. Strange? :megalol:

 

You don't seem partial at all in this debate, totslly trustworthy :music_whistling:

[VZ_342]

All sides try to put the best spin on the outcome, that’s SOP (“Standard Operating Procedure “).

 

Give it a few days, more accurate details will come out. Maybe we should say “less inaccurate”...

[Hummingbird]

That NATO says it isn't planning any further attacks says a lot in terms of how successful the attack was IMHO. Had the attack been unsuccessful NATO wouldn't have told the wolrd that no further attacks are necessary.

 

Meanwhile the syrian statements remind me of this:

CXl1GkWWGmA

[Akatsuki]

As always the truth lies somwhere in the middle...

[Esac_mirmidon]

Not planning further attacks is to avoid further conflict scalation, Not because attacks success.

 

The region power balance is very unstable.

[Hummingbird]

Not planning further attacks is to avoid further conflict scalation, Not because attacks success.

 

You don't launch an attack and then expect to avoid conflict....

 

To me it is clear that the attack was a success, the reaction from both parties heavily indicates this.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Is more complicated than this.

[Coxy_99]

This thread is not going to end well :music_whistling::music_whistling:

[Esac_mirmidon]

Not because me.

[Coxy_99]

I blame Japan in all of this LOL

[cypc]

I was just investigating that, looks like translator error.

Nice catch, I don't speak russian, so if translator fails me ... :no_sad:

[Alfa]

You don't launch an attack and then expect to avoid conflict....

 

Yet they made very sure to target facilities without causing large amounts of casualties on the Syrian side and not to hit anything Russian exactly to avoid escalation.

 

To me it is clear that the attack was a success, the reaction from both parties heavily indicates this.

 

Thats incredibly naive - the attack was a statement and "a success" simply because it took place regardless of whether it had any actual military impact on the Syrian regime....same as the last one.

 

The Western coalition will say that they hit all targets, have seriously thwarted the Syrian regime's ability to use chemical weapons and that none of their missiles were shot down, while the Russians and Syrians will say that the Syrian regime has no chemical weapons, that the attack hit nothing important and that most of the missiles were shot down.

 

.....just as expected :) .

[Airj247]

I blame Japan in all of this LOL

 

Yes absolutely

[Falcon_S]

...

 

To me it is clear that the attack was a success...

 

Use more than 100 missiles to make only 2-3 hits (CIVILIAN objects) and declare it a success - It's crazy.

[Hummingbird]

Use more than 100 missiles to make only 2-3 hits (CIVILIAN objects) and declare it a success - It's crazy.

 

If you ask me it's crazy to believe that 71 missiles were shot down and that only 2-3 hit their mark.

 

The fact that it was Russia who called for an emergency peace meeting also points toward the success of the attack. If you ask me the Russians know they're losing their grip through Assad in the region and are therefore desperate at this point. That they at the same time call it an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state is 1st class humor considering their recent actions in the crimea.

[aaron886]

This thread has no solid information or careful discussion in it. It's just a good example of how badly people want to see their country look good and the other country look bad. Nationalism is back, baby.

[Boberro]

In my opinion it was mostly success for the US. I see that USA and coalition ignore Russians because they are no match for West Coalition under USA leadership. US knows that, Russia knows that.

USA and rest bombed, are still bombing and will be bombing Syria. Russians have been trying to be power, and will be trying later, but they have no means for that with economy only a bit better than African country.

I don't think that both sides would escalate it further, for Russia is important not to lose the rest of face which they still have, while the US cannot make declarations on Tweeter lol.

Mass media often lie on both sides, but I rather trust Western ones, than Russian which as history proved, are off.

[Pilotasso]

This thread has no solid information or careful discussion in it. It's just a good example of how badly people want to see their country look good and the other country look bad. Nationalism is back, baby.

 

It was never gone, just dorment. Sometimes I dislike to even visit Youtube and the internet in general. It's a snakes nest of fearmongering, more than the usual.

[Falcon_S]

...success...

 

In my opinion it was mostly success for the US...

 

Ok, USA success.

 

(I'm thinking like Russia) ;)

Edited April 14, 2018 by Falcon_S

[Coxy_99]

Why does Brazil cause so much trouble?

[Falcon_S]

Why does Brazil cause so much trouble?

 

too much coffee :D

[Coxy_99]

Yes :)

[RShackleford]

[Majinbot]

This thread has no solid information or careful discussion in it. It's just a good example of how badly people want to see their country look good and the other country look bad. Nationalism is back, baby.

 

Half of the forum discussions are like this one...