Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

... is that the wrong thread, or...? Didn't actually watch any of it, mind, just checked the title, thus the asking.

[SalmonGod]

It's some people dancing at a convention, while wearing highly detailed masks of Kim Jong Un, Trump, and Putin.

Not related to any serious political discussion, but...

[wobbly]

I'd take the idea of intervention in Syria a lot more serious if anyone seemed to have a plan on what to do after Assad had been taken down. None of the people saying we must do something have actually mentioned what happens next.

[TheDarkStar]

I'd take the idea of intervention in Syria a lot more serious if anyone seemed to have a plan on what to do after Assad had been taken down. None of the people saying we must do something have actually mentioned what happens next.

Given our past history, probably another decade of instability and terrorism.

[Max™]

For the record: the Tomahawks launched amount to spitting distance of 90 million.

Also, I know nothing about Haley besides the fact that Bolivia asked the UN to hold discussions about this behind closed doors, and Haley pointed out that the US, as the president of the UN Security Council this month, has decided the session will be held out in the open.

"Any country that chooses to defend the atrocities of the Syrian regime will have to do so in full public view, for all the world to hear." ~Nikki Haley

[Antioch]

I'd take the idea of intervention in Syria a lot more serious if anyone seemed to have a plan on what to do after Assad had been taken down. None of the people saying we must do something have actually mentioned what happens next.

Given our past history, probably another decade of instability and terrorism.

This. The problem isn't as simple as "remove Assad and all will be fine".

[Helgoland]

Well, getting rid of Assad doesn't necessarily mean going full retard like Bush did in Iraq and destroying all of the existing state. Ideally we'd end up with the upper crust of the regime forced into exile, a peace and reconciliation process being put in place, and regime and sort-of-moderates joining forces against Tahrir al-Sham and ISIS.

A remote possibility, yeah, but one that gives a much better chance of long-term stability than either Assad winning a military victory or the regime being overrun by the extremists we have strengthened by half a decade of inaction.

[smjjames]

Funny you should ask: I'm about to finish my master's, and one thing I had in mind was to spend the next two years joining the reserves. It won't work out, because they won't take crazy folks, but that ought to be enough to shut up your moralistic yapping - especially considering that nobody here has advocated for boots on the ground.

For everything else:

You say this strike came too fast? You had four years: Present me a viable alternative that doesn't involve the erosion of fundamental international norms, first of all the one that will be celebrating its centennial. Either do that, or be honest about not giving a shit.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one am disgusted by hypocrisy. If you're against this strike and don't have any leads for a better solution, just say it plain and clear: 'I don't mind Syrian children being gassed.' 'My tax rates staying low is more important than atrocities being stopped.' 'American lives are too valuable to be risked for the lives of brown people.'

If this was a real conversation I would have no recourse but to punch you in your libelous mouth. It is not a lack of courage or mercy that I base my arguments upon, but rather common sense and the evidence of the past two decades of foreign policy. It is not that I don't care, it's that I recognize it is impossible for us to conceivably solve every humanitarian crisis on the planet, and that getting involved in sectarian warfare will not end it, it will only create annother, larger humanitarian crisis. Do not insult me again.

I'm a bit late on this: PTTG, please stop with the personal attacks, it's fine to be passionate, but it's entirely possible to do so without doing personal attacks.

[sluissa]

For the record: the Tomahawks launched amount to spitting distance of 90 million.

For the record: that number is at BEST not the whole story and at worst completely dishonest.

At best you have to account for the fact that you've already paid for these missiles and other 3450~ sitting in storage or on ships somewhere. And whether they're launched or not you've basically lost that money.

At worst the total cost of the tomahawks the US has purchased over the 30+ years they've been in service is somewhere under 2.5 billion. Which puts the avg cost of one at under 700k. Which would make the launch something under HALF that 90 million mark.

Buying brand new top of the line tomahawks does cost a lot... something about a million and a half each. But the navy is buying those one way or another. But at the same time they're buying them, they're also scaling back the purchases, preparing to phase them out completely in the coming years. That fact is driving up the price significantly given that you're losing the economy of scale on them and also incentivising Raytheon to squeeze as much as possible out of a program that's going away before the money dries up.

[Helgoland]

Something something the definition of insanity.

Peace and Reconciliation worked great in a lot of places, Latin America and South Africa for example. Working with existing native bureaucracies is something that every non-insane military entity ever has done. Giving those that must go an easy way out instead of hauling them off to trial and then either imprisoning or executing them makes them cling to power less fervently.

None of this was done in Iraq, by the way.

[smjjames]

Something something the definition of insanity.

Peace and Reconciliation worked great in a lot of places, Latin America and South Africa for example. Working with existing native bureaucracies is something that every non-insane military entity ever has done. Giving those that must go an easy way out instead of hauling them off to trial and then either imprisoning or executing them makes them cling to power less fervently.

None of this was done in Iraq, by the way.

Yeah, someone earlier, Reelya I think?, and it may have been in the old thread (though it may have come up multiple times), had said effectively that as far as Iraq goes. Likely also the same thing wasn't done for Libya.

Also, while Saddam was definetly bad, he wasn't in the middle of a civil war when the US invaded and occupied Iraq.

I find it really hard to see how reconcillation would work in Syria due to how brutal Assad has been and the fact that there are so many factions at play here. Syria has become a 11D chessboard in a way that Iraq never did.

Syria has the same kind of problem that Libya had as far as trying to do Peace and Reconcillation, you kind of have to get the peace part done first. Doing it in the middle of a civil war just doesn't help. Europe didn't do the reconcillation while the fighting was still going on, for example.

Though Syria likely shares another problem with Libya in that there are many factions that would vie for control, just not to the same extent.

TL;DR
Attempting a forced regieme change by an outside third party during a period of major instability is even WORSE than doing it when the region is relatively stable (i.e. no conflicts going on), even if you manage to make everything perfect in the end. Though it's not so black and white like that.

[Strife26]

For the record: the Tomahawks launched amount to spitting distance of 90 million.

For the record: that number is at BEST not the whole story and at worst completely dishonest.

At best you have to account for the fact that you've already paid for these missiles and other 3450~ sitting in storage or on ships somewhere. And whether they're launched or not you've basically lost that money.

At worst the total cost of the tomahawks the US has purchased over the 30+ years they've been in service is somewhere under 2.5 billion. Which puts the avg cost of one at under 700k. Which would make the launch something under HALF that 90 million mark.

Buying brand new top of the line tomahawks does cost a lot... something about a million and a half each. But the navy is buying those one way or another. But at the same time they're buying them, they're also scaling back the purchases, preparing to phase them out completely in the coming years. That fact is driving up the price significantly given that you're losing the economy of scale on them and also incentivising Raytheon to squeeze as much as possible out of a program that's going away before the money dries up.

Even 90 million dollars isn't that much money on any military scale. This was effectively one broadside from one American destroyer.

[Starver]

Probably amortisable against the cost of a dummy/training missile launch exercise that now does not need to be conducted by the crew at a later date.  In material costs, the warhead itself is probably very little compared to all the still necessary flight/guidance gubbins, and the whole engineered 'dumb missile' guts that this all controls.

[Frumple]

Would only build three or four new schools from the ground up, checking average costs, heh. Half would only be about one and a half or so. Apparently match yearly funding for about seven and a half millennium worth of student/around a year for 7500 of 'em, which'd be around seven or eight full schools at the upper end of the curve, two-three times that for lower end. Perspective is neat, some days.

[sluissa]

Would only build three or four new schools from the ground up, checking average costs, heh. Half would only be about one and a half or so. Apparently match yearly funding for about seven and a half millennium worth of student/around a year for 7500 of 'em, which'd be around seven or eight full schools at the upper end of the curve, two-three times that for lower end. Perspective is neat, some days.

Sure, just go back in time and convince congress to not pay for those missiles that were already bought years ago and instead build a few new schools somewhere. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with cutting military funding. I'm fine with the dismantling of the bullshit military complex that's draining the country dry just to provide the military with a few new toys that get bought, shown off at a demonstration and then shelved.

But this is not a swords to ploughshares situation. You can't just take military equipment and beat it into school equipment, as much as San Diego wants to try.