Guitar Gear Forum

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:21 am**

I heard about that on the way to work this morning.... totally disgusting

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:55 am**

neilrocks25 wrote:
neilrocks25 wrote:This is interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23892288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

after seeing this I am pissed my government is not doing anything

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

napalming schools is just unhuman.

Sure it is, but how does that justify bombing MORE people under the banner of being the "world's police"?

Here's some other analysis on the chemical attacks - it's not as obvious as the mainstream media are saying that it was the Asad government that used this chemical agent.

NightWatch wrote:NightWatch

For the night of 29 August 2013

Syria: The Asad government continues to insist that it did not use chemical weapons in the attack on 21 August. It approved an extension of the UN inspection team's visit and requested that it investigate three gas attacks against Syrian soldiers since 21 August.

Lebanon's Daily Star reported on 26 August that at least four Hizballah fighters are receiving treatment in Beirut after coming into contact with chemical agents in Syria, a security source said.

The source said four or five members came into contact with the chemical agents while searching a group of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar over the weekend. (The attack on 21 August is being called the Jobar incident.)

Last Saturday, Syrian state television said Syrian soldiers found chemical agents in Jobar and that some had suffocated while entering the tunnels

Comment: The three primary questions about the attack remain unanswered.

- What agent was used?

- How was it delivered?

- By whom?

What appeared to be a slam dunk on Tuesday has weakened as more information has emerged about the source of US intelligence and about Syrian rebel chemical warfare capabilities. A lot of information has emerged, but is not receiving mainstream coverage in the US.

The agent. All experts who provided Feedback to NightWatch agreed some kind of chemical incident occurred on 21 August east of Damascus. As for the agent, multiple experts in Feedback claimed it was sarin. An equal number of experts in Feedback disagreed and claimed it was some other agent. Almost all based their judgments on symptoms observed in videos posted by rebels or on second hand reports of medical examinations.

Other videos posted to the web showed bags of chemicals with the label "made in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Factory for Chlorine and Alkalis" that were captured in rebel strongholds. The factory, known as SACHLO, is located in Riyadh and is hiring at this time.

Still other videos showed liquids in canisters that the reporter said were found in rebel tunnels. A third set purported to show a cache of chemical canisters and rockets that had been captured in a rebel bunker that could be fired by an artillery piece.

All the videos are inconclusive. None are dated; the location is never established; and none have a reliable chain of custody. At best they establish that both sides have chemicals, have used chemicals at some time and that more than one agent has been used by one or other side.

The delivery system. The open source information on instrumentality indicates rockets or modified artillery shells. Both sides have rockets that can deliver chemicals. The rebels have posted to the Web that they have such a capability and showed it to Sky News.

The attacker. Concerning the attacker, the mainstream media overwhelming claim that the Syrian government executed the attack. The evidence is not as clear as this assertion implies.

The Syrian government denies responsibility and claims its own forces suffered from a rebel chemical attack. The government is winning the fight and has no obvious motive to undertake action that would invite US military intervention that might affect the momentum of its successes. At least, that is what the Syrian government has said.

The rebels have strong motives to internationalize their fight and to manipulate the US into fighting on behalf of Islamists whose colleagues attacked the US in 2001. Some American officials and experts have asserted that the rebels have no chemical weapons. Not even the rebels say that.

What has not been reported nor evaluated are rebel claims, published by Sky News in July 2013 for example, that they have a sarin chemical weapons program and delivery systems.

So the media tally is the rebels claim they have gas and were gassed. The Government acknowledges that the rebels have gas and admits it has gas, but denies it used it. The Government claims that its gas is under strict control and the US officially has confirmed the Syrian government's claim. Both sides also have rockets that can deliver gas.

No news service has investigated rebel use of gas on 21 August. Nobody has bothered to ask any questions.

The role of Israeli intelligence. Finally, there is the question of the intercepted conversations. They remain classified so no one knows what was said, by whom, in what language, in what context, obtained by what reliable collection system, translated by whom, with what periodicity of collection and with what editing by supervisors. Some reporters claimed the conversations were between low level people. Others claimed a senior civilian official talked directly with a chemical unit military commander. That kind of direct communication is not possible even in the US military.

A further complication is two US sources assert that Israeli intelligence intercepted the conversations and passed the content to NSA. This scenario raises a new set of concerns about the reliability of the channel. Was the information doctored? Do some Israelis have a motive to lie to the US regarding events in Syria?

At this point, there are no answers to the three primary questions based on open source reporting. The findings of the UN investigators most likely will be inconclusive as to who executed the attack, but should help confirm the nature of the agent and the most likely delivery system

Administrative note: Thanks to all who provided Feedback on this issue.

Russia: Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying Russia has decided to deploy to the eastern Mediterranean a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the "coming days."

Comment: Earlier this summer, Russian sources stated that the Russian Navy had established a permanent squadron in the Mediterranean Sea of 16 ships. Today's announcement said the two new ships would be part of a routine rotation. That is the language the US uses to increase its naval presence anywhere through overlapping rotation schedules.

This deployment does not necessarily mean the Russians will defend Syria. It does mean the Russians have raised the price and risks of a US attack on Syria.

UK-US-Syria: For the record. The British parliament voted against military action against Syria. The British have fought Muslims and Muslim tribes for nearly 200 years. This generation has had enough of war against Muslims.

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:08 am**

Murdoch wrote:Yeah, taking military action here would be a terrible fucking idea. The main instigators are John Kerry, Barry, and the Prime Minister of Britain. Even Congress, the worthless fucks that they are, are like "hold on now, wait a minute", and the politicians in the U.K. are resisting this.

This is something that we just need to stay the fuck out of.

Actually, I think Israel is the main instigator behind this. They're pulling our strings. This is MUCH more of an issue for them. And also, they HATE gas.

It's too risky for Israel to get directly involved. But we can do it for them.

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2013 11:44 am**

Harvest wrote:
neilrocks25 wrote:
neilrocks25 wrote:This is interesting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23892288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

after seeing this I am pissed my government is not doing anything

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

napalming schools is just unhuman.

Sure it is, but how does that justify bombing MORE people under the banner of being the "world's police"?

Here's some other analysis on the chemical attacks - it's not as obvious as the mainstream media are saying that it was the Asad government that used this chemical agent.

NightWatch wrote:NightWatch

For the night of 29 August 2013

Syria: The Asad government continues to insist that it did not use chemical weapons in the attack on 21 August. It approved an extension of the UN inspection team's visit and requested that it investigate three gas attacks against Syrian soldiers since 21 August.

Lebanon's Daily Star reported on 26 August that at least four Hizballah fighters are receiving treatment in Beirut after coming into contact with chemical agents in Syria, a security source said.

The source said four or five members came into contact with the chemical agents while searching a group of rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar over the weekend. (The attack on 21 August is being called the Jobar incident.)

Last Saturday, Syrian state television said Syrian soldiers found chemical agents in Jobar and that some had suffocated while entering the tunnels

Comment: The three primary questions about the attack remain unanswered.

- What agent was used?

- How was it delivered?

- By whom?

What appeared to be a slam dunk on Tuesday has weakened as more information has emerged about the source of US intelligence and about Syrian rebel chemical warfare capabilities. A lot of information has emerged, but is not receiving mainstream coverage in the US.

The agent. All experts who provided Feedback to NightWatch agreed some kind of chemical incident occurred on 21 August east of Damascus. As for the agent, multiple experts in Feedback claimed it was sarin. An equal number of experts in Feedback disagreed and claimed it was some other agent. Almost all based their judgments on symptoms observed in videos posted by rebels or on second hand reports of medical examinations.

Other videos posted to the web showed bags of chemicals with the label "made in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Factory for Chlorine and Alkalis" that were captured in rebel strongholds. The factory, known as SACHLO, is located in Riyadh and is hiring at this time.

Still other videos showed liquids in canisters that the reporter said were found in rebel tunnels. A third set purported to show a cache of chemical canisters and rockets that had been captured in a rebel bunker that could be fired by an artillery piece.

All the videos are inconclusive. None are dated; the location is never established; and none have a reliable chain of custody. At best they establish that both sides have chemicals, have used chemicals at some time and that more than one agent has been used by one or other side.

The delivery system. The open source information on instrumentality indicates rockets or modified artillery shells. Both sides have rockets that can deliver chemicals. The rebels have posted to the Web that they have such a capability and showed it to Sky News.

The attacker. Concerning the attacker, the mainstream media overwhelming claim that the Syrian government executed the attack. The evidence is not as clear as this assertion implies.

The Syrian government denies responsibility and claims its own forces suffered from a rebel chemical attack. The government is winning the fight and has no obvious motive to undertake action that would invite US military intervention that might affect the momentum of its successes. At least, that is what the Syrian government has said.

The rebels have strong motives to internationalize their fight and to manipulate the US into fighting on behalf of Islamists whose colleagues attacked the US in 2001. Some American officials and experts have asserted that the rebels have no chemical weapons. Not even the rebels say that.

What has not been reported nor evaluated are rebel claims, published by Sky News in July 2013 for example, that they have a sarin chemical weapons program and delivery systems.

So the media tally is the rebels claim they have gas and were gassed. The Government acknowledges that the rebels have gas and admits it has gas, but denies it used it. The Government claims that its gas is under strict control and the US officially has confirmed the Syrian government's claim. Both sides also have rockets that can deliver gas.

No news service has investigated rebel use of gas on 21 August. Nobody has bothered to ask any questions.

The role of Israeli intelligence. Finally, there is the question of the intercepted conversations. They remain classified so no one knows what was said, by whom, in what language, in what context, obtained by what reliable collection system, translated by whom, with what periodicity of collection and with what editing by supervisors. Some reporters claimed the conversations were between low level people. Others claimed a senior civilian official talked directly with a chemical unit military commander. That kind of direct communication is not possible even in the US military.

A further complication is two US sources assert that Israeli intelligence intercepted the conversations and passed the content to NSA. This scenario raises a new set of concerns about the reliability of the channel. Was the information doctored? Do some Israelis have a motive to lie to the US regarding events in Syria?

At this point, there are no answers to the three primary questions based on open source reporting. The findings of the UN investigators most likely will be inconclusive as to who executed the attack, but should help confirm the nature of the agent and the most likely delivery system

Administrative note: Thanks to all who provided Feedback on this issue.

Russia: Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying Russia has decided to deploy to the eastern Mediterranean a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet, the Moskva, and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the "coming days."

Comment: Earlier this summer, Russian sources stated that the Russian Navy had established a permanent squadron in the Mediterranean Sea of 16 ships. Today's announcement said the two new ships would be part of a routine rotation. That is the language the US uses to increase its naval presence anywhere through overlapping rotation schedules.

This deployment does not necessarily mean the Russians will defend Syria. It does mean the Russians have raised the price and risks of a US attack on Syria.

UK-US-Syria: For the record. The British parliament voted against military action against Syria. The British have fought Muslims and Muslim tribes for nearly 200 years. This generation has had enough of war against Muslims.

another point

UK intelligence assessment on Syria under analysis

UK intelligence chiefs have told Prime Minister David Cameron it is "highly likely" the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical attack on 21 August, which killed at least 350 civilians in eastern Damascus.

The assessment was written by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) on 27 August and released by Downing Street on 29 August.

The BBC's security correspondent Gordon Corera gives his analysis of the assessment below (GC).

Paragraph one
A chemical attack occurred in Damascus on the morning of 21 August, resulting in at least 350 fatalities. It is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale.

GC: A central reason for the relative confidence of the assessment is a view that it could not be the opposition and therefore had to be the regime which launched the attack.

The regime has used CW on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past.

GC: The accompanying letter from the chair of the JIC says that it has judged with the "highest possible level of certainty" that chemical weapons have already been used 14 times but not on the same scale. The JIC appears very confident that these attacks were by the regime and may have more intelligence about these incidents than the 21 August attack.

There is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack.

GC: This key sentence indicates that they have only "some" intelligence pointing to the regime carrying out the attack but nothing so conclusive as to dispel all doubt. It is described in the accompanying letter as a "limited but growing body of intelligence". It is also described as highly sensitive, meaning it might be intercepted communications or material from another country. The prime minister has been shown it, but it is not included in this assessment.

These factors make it highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible.

GC: This is the key judgement of the document. The phrase "highly likely" indicates a significant degree of confidence but not absolute certainty.

Paragraph two
Extensive video footage attributed to the attack in eastern Damascus (which we assess would be very difficult to falsify) is consistent with the use of a nerve agent, such as sarin, and is not consistent with the use of blister or riot control agents.

GC: This paragraph, along with the accompanying letter, shows that the judgement that chemical weapons were used is based on what is known as open source information - in other words not secret intelligence but in this case public video footage. It also suggests they do not have separate confirmation of the use of chemical weapons, for instance in the form of analysis of samples at UK labs, which does seem to have taken place in the wake of other previous attacks. The committee chair says it has asked experts inside and outside government to see if this video could have been faked in any way by the opposition and has come to the conclusion that it is real.

Paragraph three
There is no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of CW on an apparently larger scale now, particularly given the current presence in Syria of the UN investigation team. Permission to authorise CW has probably been delegated by President Assad to senior regime commanders, such as [*], but any deliberate change in the scale and nature of use would require his authorisation.

GC: This judgement is important because it suggests the JIC have some idea of the chain of command for the use of chemical weapons but are still not sure why chemical weapons were used and on precisely whose orders on this occasion. The accompanying letter says this area of motivation is the one where it does not have high confidence in its assessment. There has been speculation as to whether the attack was launched on orders from the top or on the initiative of a local commander.

Paragraph four
There is no credible evidence that any opposition group has used CW. A number continue to seek a CW capability, but none currently has the capability to conduct a CW attack on this scale.

GC: This judgement is interesting because it tells us that some rebel groups have been trying to get hold of chemical weapons. There has been great concern that those opponents of the regime linked to al-Qaeda might get hold of them. However, the UK appears convinced that no opposition group would be able to carry out the kind of attack seen on 21 August, therefore meaning the use of weapons logically would have to have been by the regime.

Paragraph five
Russia claims to have a 'good degree of confidence' that the attack was an 'opposition provocation' but has announced that they support an investigation into the incident. We expect them to maintain this line. The Syrian regime has now announced that it will allow access to the sites by UN inspectors.

GC: The inspectors will be looking to prove if chemical weapons were used but are not expected to say by whom.

Paragraph six
There is no immediate time limit over which environmental or physiological samples would have degraded beyond usefulness. However, the longer it takes inspectors to gain access to the affected sites, the more difficult it will be to establish the chain of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

GC: A chain of evidence is required to be sure that a particular sample was not tampered with before it is analysed for proof that chemical weapons were used.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23883617

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:30 pm**

It doesn't make sense that the Assad forces would use them though - they were already winning the civil war :idk:

Doesn't really matter what the intelligence is I guess, they'll probably go in there eventually anyways... now that it's up front in the news it just seems like a matter of time before we get the official "THEY HAVE WMDs WE NEED TO INVADE!!!" Part of me wants to see Obama get further exposed as the dope/company man he seems to be, but not really at the cost of thousands of lives.

Here's some more analysis that looks as the issue beyond the myopic view of the media and whatever bone they feel like chewing on today... touching on what it might take to get the job done, who else might get involved, and the longer term impacts.

Obama' Bluff is republished with permission of Stratfor.

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:46 pm**

Harvest wrote:It doesn't make sense that the Assad forces would use them though - they were already winning the civil war

^^^THIS. The rebels are losing and probably used captured sarin themselves to get a boost from a US strike. Does the UN really want rebels with morals like that getting into power???????

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:35 pm**

Krunchmeister wrote:
Harvest wrote:It doesn't make sense that the Assad forces would use them though - they were already winning the civil war

^^^THIS. The rebels are losing and probably used captured sarin themselves to get a boost from a US strike. Does the UN really want rebels with morals like that getting into power???????

The problem with this line of thinking is that you're lumping "The Rebels" as one group. I've made the same mistake.

They're really dozens if not scores of disparate militias each with their own distinct hopes and goals united only in the vague idea of overthrowing Assad.

So, while I wouldn't put it past some of the rebel groups to do exactly what you said, many would be appalled by the idea. (Note, I'm not discounting the idea that's what happened, but I'm certainly not convinced its what happened either.)

The problem is, we long missed the point of distinction on which rebel groups we could help.

The short answer is "No, the UN does NOT want rebels like that gaining power." Neither does the US.

That's why at most we're going to make a meaningless gesture of launching some missiles. It won't do shit to change the situation, but it will show "We cannot stand the use of chemical weapons but please continue to use cluster bombs, heavy artillery and incendiary bombs against civilians because we arent' going to get involved in a ground war."

Its a clusterfuck, and while it sickens me what is happening to the Syrian people, I honestly do no see a way we can help in a military manner.

Posted: **Fri Aug 30, 2013 10:50 pm**

ovid9 wrote:
Krunchmeister wrote:
Harvest wrote:It doesn't make sense that the Assad forces would use them though - they were already winning the civil war

^^^THIS. The rebels are losing and probably used captured sarin themselves to get a boost from a US strike. Does the UN really want rebels with morals like that getting into power???????

The problem with this line of thinking is that you're lumping "The Rebels" as one group. I've made the same mistake.

They're really dozens if not scores of disparate militias each with their own distinct hopes and goals united only in the vague idea of overthrowing Assad.

So, while I wouldn't put it past some of the rebel groups to do exactly what you said, many would be appalled by the idea. (Note, I'm not discounting the idea that's what happened, but I'm certainly not convinced its what happened either.)

The problem is, we long missed the point of distinction on which rebel groups we could help.

The short answer is "No, the UN does NOT want rebels like that gaining power." Neither does the US.

That's why at most we're going to make a meaningless gesture of launching some missiles. It won't do shit to change the situation, but it will show "We cannot stand the use of chemical weapons but please continue to use cluster bombs, heavy artillery and incendiary bombs against civilians because we arent' going to get involved in a ground war."

Its a clusterfuck, and while it sickens me what is happening to the Syrian people, I honestly do no see a way we can help in a military manner.

You bring up a good point about the different rebel factions. Its not unreasonable that gas was used by one rebel group upon an area that was held by another faction. This would serve multiple goals for the side using the gas.
The question of religion is crucial in this as well. Iran is keen to see Assad fail and this makes him a"friend " to the countries with oil barons. Its no coincedence Britain is opposed to a strike and France is for it. Yes its a clusterfuck and inflamming the region more is likely a bad political move.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:38 am**

change!

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:09 pm**

To those saying "Assad is winning why would he use chemicals weapons?" its pretty simple. This isnt' the first time chemical weapons have been used in this conflict. Its at least the 3rd, possibly 5th or 6th time, but by far the largest.

Assad's forces have been using the chemical weapons as a "poor man's neutron bomb" to steal a phrase I heard a commentator use. Clearing out rebel strongholds in cities is costly in men and material. If you can hit an area with a chemical strike, that's a whole lot quicker and easier and Assad has already established he doesn't give a fuck about about civilian casualties.

I'm not saying I KNOW it was Assad's forces, just that merely the fact they are winning doesn't mean using them wouldn't make sense.

Also, most chemical weapons need fairly specialized delivery systems the telemetry of the strike has been tracked (allegedly) to a regime held area. Again, that could be a lie, or the rebels theoretically could have launched from the regime territory, but most likely it was the regime wanting to clear out a pesky stronghold and possibly used too much, possibly missed their target, or possibly did exactly what they wanted to do.

All that said, I still don't think the US or even NATO forces lobbing a few missiles is going to do shit to prevent Assad from doing the same thing again. And he'll still have piles and piles of clusterbombs, incendiary bombs, regular bombs, and other shit to slaughter people with anyway.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:18 pm**

Please. Assad is an old hand at this and knows there is fuck all the West can do to him so why not use chems

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:24 pm**

Yarbicus wrote:Please. Assad is an old hand at this and knows there is fuck all the West can do to him so why not use chems

+1

Seriously, he knows we aren't going to put any troops in, he can kill he people at will. And with Putin having his back, he's got a block on any real UN resolutions which would be the only thing I would support.

I do understand why Obama wants to punitively strike them, but its too late, we should've done it the FIRST time they used them if we were gonna do it. Too little, too late and we really really don't want to get involved here IMO.

If anything we should be pressuring the rebels and Assad to come to the table to negotiate. Sadly, I think that time is long passed as too many radicals have come in to fight against the secular regime and Assad has learned he can act with impunity.

It'd be interesting to know how many purely Syrian rebel forces there are left. I'm thinking the number of them that aren't heavily beholden to Al Qaeda is pretty slim by this point.

Sadly.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:34 pm**

the only thing, ONLY thing cool about this syria bullshit is how much cover time my old birds are getting.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:40 pm**

Y0UNGBL00D wrote:the only thing, ONLY thing cool about this syria bullshit is how much cover time my old birds are getting.

Which one were you on again bro?

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:52 pm**

my birds were the TLAMs.
us does shock and awe, firing hundreds of tlams---during my time in tlam school. :facepalm:

us conductsair strikes via sumberged launch tlams in *******--while all the surface ships sent to port for plausible deniability and im eating bbq in bahrain :facepalm:

us pull this shit---after i get out :facepalm:

story of my missile-launching career

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:57 pm**

Y0UNGBL00D wrote:my birds were the TLAMs.
us does shock and awe, firing hundreds of tlams---during my time in tlam school.
us conductsair strikes via sumberged launch tlams in *******--while all the surface ships sent to port for plausible deniability and im eating bbq in bahrain
us pull this shit---after i get out

story of my missile-launching career

Well, that's not necessarily for the worst.

Posted: **Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:08 pm**

IMO President Obama is doing the right thing putting this in Congress' hands. If theres is real proof then bring it to the UN table . The last thing the US needs is another WMD fiasco like Colin Powell spewed in order to give Cheney/Bush the war they wanted BEFORE 911. The response to a crime should be done legally and preferably by the Hague or the UN not in a vigilante asault. Theres no need to rush to judgement as a strike really wouldnt alter much other than increase hatred for the "bully" US.

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:15 am**

It's probably the right decision, sure. It's also an easy scapegoat if public opinion sways either way "It's not my fault anymore, blame the (Republican dominated) congress".

This is the "Plan B". Buy some time, wait on Congress to vote, and hope that Assad, the Iranians and the Russians don't call his terribly delivered bluff.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMOgXntgKGY[/video]

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:50 am**

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:00 am**

Y0UNGBL00D wrote:my birds were the TLAMs.

I have one question to ask you. You may not be able to answer it, and if so that is OK, just say so.

When the goof up at Minot AFB with the cruise missles occured, the confusion point was how 'disarmed' BGM-109s with their warheads removed could have been accidentally uploaded onto a rack before flight.

Q: When a TLAM is ready to be uploaded for firing, is there an immediate, obvious visual thing that tells the weapons specialist "this weapon has a warhead and will go bang - or - this weapon does NOT have a warhead and cannot ever go bang."

Yes / No is all I am asking for. It may be something you can't answer, and that's cool, just say so. :bow:

---------------

I agree with most of the postings here - at this point a missile strike or brief bombing campaign is not goint to have much effect. We can spank their forces pretty hard, but by now all the chem goodies are dispersed. There is no real way to deny or attrit their chem capability. We could thrash some other military capabilities Assad has, but that's not really the same thing, and I don't think it sends the same message.

I wonder what the Turks are thinking ? Their intervention is almost guaranteed to PO any Arab fighters. That is a particular hatred and conflict unto itself; and I wonder if it's brewing at all ?

Posted: **Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:57 am**

You bring up a good point Reverse Entropy. I haven't read much on the Turkish views of late. Honestly the last I remember seeing them mentioned were the struggles of dealing with all the refugees a year or so ago. I can't imagine they are thrilled by the turn of events, but the last thing they want is a radical Islamist regime getting set up right next door either. (Well, I'm sure some Turks wouldn't mind that, but many would not in the slightest.)

Ugh.

Did I say Ugh yet?

Ugh.

Posted: **Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:10 am**

I have been critical of Obama including his 'stop-starts and changing direction' with the Syria/Assad, (Obama said 'were going in, no were NOT going it, its NOT a regime change, ok were going to do a pinpoint strike at this time, ok we have a coalition, Ooops we DONT have a coalition, Assad has to go" they have kinda been all over the place) but ultimately the final decision is most important and trumps the indecision and sputtering...

Lets just get it right and be 110% sure of the all the crimes the administration is claiming

I hope we stay out, (cant we stay out of that region for a while!) but the final decision and evidence/support is the most important imo

PS - There is a pic of John Kerry and his wife and Assad and his wife eating dinner together a couple of years ago (2010 or 2011) not a very good pic for Kerry lol

PSS - What the hell are those green'ish' looking drinks? Cant be mohitos damnit!

Posted: **Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:26 am**

Reverse Entropy wrote:
Y0UNGBL00D wrote:my birds were the TLAMs.

I have one question to ask you. You may not be able to answer it, and if so that is OK, just say so.

When the goof up at Minot AFB with the cruise missles occured, the confusion point was how 'disarmed' BGM-109s with their warheads removed could have been accidentally uploaded onto a rack before flight.

Q: When a TLAM is ready to be uploaded for firing, is there an immediate, obvious visual thing that tells the weapons specialist "this weapon has a warhead and will go bang - or - this weapon does NOT have a warhead and cannot ever go bang."

Yes / No is all I am asking for. It may be something you can't answer, and that's cool, just say so.

no, there would be no visual indication. the warhead is housed behind the forward guidance section, and is surrounded by some integral airframe and avionics systems. so for the missile to be intact, that module has to be in place, warhead in it or not. you wouldn't be able to tell from the outside. this is the case with most missiles. this is especially true for navy TLAMs, as we get them in AURs (all-up rounds) encased in a teflon tube inside a VLS-compatible square tube. sensor-protected sealed skins and all. never get to see the airframe until deployment. oh how many of those square tubes i have guided into VLS cells on hot days....

Posted: **Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:48 am**

and though im not intimately familiar with the AGM-29 (ACM), it really is a 109 (tomahawk) at heart, with just a badass stealth airframe. warhead and engine are the same. the W80 nuke warhead is pretty small. about 2' long, and about 10" in diameter, iirc. variable yield though, up 150 kt unclass, bad little bitch. the US does not deploy with W80 armed TLAMs any more, but we could if we wanted to. still in the stockpile.

Posted: **Wed Sep 04, 2013 6:47 pm**

I'm sorta torn.

On the one hand the last thing I think we need is yet another money/morale pit of a war in the sandbox. I've still got friends on active duty who would no doubt get sucked into it. Shit, my kid's in preschool and might end up getting drafted if this shit doesn't end at some point.

On the other hand, there's a line which we don't tolerate the crossing of, which is using WMDs. A guy I knew was actually in the Army unit that found Saddam's stash of old mothballed shells so I always get a chuckle out of that, but this is obviously totally different. The mess has gone on long enough and what has been largely an internal problem is now one with much larger implications because if Asshole gets away with it, then next thing you know other folks like that butterball in N-Korea will be using them on their own populations to thin out dissent.

So while I think something absolutely must be done, the fact that the Russians are playing such a shitty role in this is troubling at the very least. They've got a naval base there and you can bet they've got tech folks spread out all over the country so anything we do will run the risk of killing Russian Nationals who are active duty military. Not that Russia could do shit about it, but not a good thing either.

Guitar Gear Forum

Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?

Re: Are we going to war again?