BGM-109 Tomahawk epic fail.

[bryant.coleman]

According to the US Defence Secretary James Mattis, the American missile attacks destroyed 20% of the active aircraft in the possession of the Syrian Air Force. I know that the ISIS and the Al Qaeda will be rejoicing at this news.

The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.

Is it the planes? The MiG 23 was put on the wing in 1969. It's junk. It seems to me that missiles were more expensive than the damage which they have caused Assad.

The missiles may be more expensive than the aircraft, but they did the purpose. No matter how old these aircraft were, some of them were used for dropping barrel bombs and other explosive devices. The Americans wanted to get rid of them, at any cost. The rebels were also finding the life quite tough as a result of the bombings. So I'd say it was $500 million well spent. 

[1715569608]

1715569608

[1715569608]

1715569608

[NeuroticFish]

What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?

~ snip ~

Airport is operating, as reported.

From what I know the tomahawk is "only" some $500k a piece. However, I may be wrong and the price is not important.
I was also "impressed" by the number of missiles shot. But I understand. They have to be used. And for good reason.
This way the american tax payers (and possibly later the Syrian oil) will have to pay for newer and better technology.

The fact they destroyed anything is of tiniest importance. The news reports will tell the "truth" that matters (did you see "Wag the Dog"?).

[criptix]

What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?

~ snip ~

Airport is operating, as reported.

From what I know the tomahawk is "only" some $500k a piece. However, I may be wrong and the price is not important.
I was also "impressed" by the number of missiles shot. But I understand. They have to be used. And for good reason.
This way the american tax payers (and possibly later the Syrian oil) will have to pay for newer and better technology.

The fact they destroyed anything is of tiniest importance. The news reports will tell the "truth" that matters (did you see "Wag the Dog"?).

More in the range of 800.000$ per tomahawk.
So less then 50 million.
Donald just increased the defense budget by over 50 billion. ^^"

So much fail from our russian bots. It makes panda babys cry.

[Samuel21]

According to the US Defence Secretary James Mattis, the American missile attacks destroyed 20% of the active aircraft in the possession of the Syrian Air Force. I know that the ISIS and the Al Qaeda will be rejoicing at this news.

The destroyed aircraft include six Russian-made MiG-23.

Is it the planes? The MiG 23 was put on the wing in 1969. It's junk. It seems to me that missiles were more expensive than the damage which they have caused Assad.

The missiles may be more expensive than the aircraft, but they did the purpose. No matter how old these aircraft were, some of them were used for dropping barrel bombs and other explosive devices. The Americans wanted to get rid of them, at any cost. The rebels were also finding the life quite tough as a result of the bombings. So I'd say it was $500 million well spent. 

It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?

[bryant.coleman]

It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?

By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.

[criptix]

It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?

By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.

Lets not talk about history (korea war, vietnam war).
What about  afghanistan iraq under bush? Iraq-afghanistan-libya-syria under obama?

I think the russian bots have a software bug :S

[Kasper123]

It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?

By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.

There is another way. To put opozitsioneram portable anti-aircraft missiles to the rebels could shoot down planes and those from the earth very quickly destroy all airbases of Syria, and Russian.

[Spoderman]

What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?
$500.000.000

Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.

http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT

Airport is operating, as reported.

Your math is off. The missiles cost the US 832,000 USD each. With 23 misses that cost the american tax payer 19 million.. OUCH!

[Spoderman]

It seems to me that it was possible to destroy them with a cheaper way. To achieve their goals in Syria, the Americans need to destroy the most modern weapons, and then old. Maybe the goal was the other?

By cheaper way, do you mean dropping bombs from military jets? It is definitely an inexpensive option, but there is always a risk of one of these jets getting shot down, and the pilot being taken as a prisoner of war (if not killed). If something like that happens, then Trump can kiss his popularity ratings a good-bye. They will nosedive from the current 35% - 45% levels to single digits.

I think you are giving Trump's supporters too much credit here. If anything happens Trump will keep escalating, that's his personality. Anyone testing the US with this administration is just asking for it.

[Goliaf]

What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?
$500.000.000

Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.

http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT

Airport is operating, as reported.

Your math is off. The missiles cost the US 832,000 USD each. With 23 misses that cost the american tax payer 19 million.. OUCH!

Can thus Trump decided to dispose of the old rocket shelf life which came to an end. Maybe that's why so many missiles had hit the target?

[kodoll]

What is the price of 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk to hit with 23 of them the Syrian canteen in desert?
$500.000.000

Experts are amoused about this large number of BGM-109 Tomahawk on 2 ships.

http://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-airport-idUSL8N1HF5PT

Airport is operating, as reported.

Your math is off. The missiles cost the US 832,000 USD each. With 23 misses that cost the american tax payer 19 million.. OUCH!

Can thus Trump decided to dispose of the old rocket shelf life which came to an end. Maybe that's why so many missiles had hit the target?

On the one hand, adults and children were killed with the help of chemical weapons, so retaliation had to come, and on the other hand geopolitical influence on the region. We should not look at what happened at the moment, but why it started and continues to this day with the participation of Russia and the United States. This is the protection of their interests and money does not play a role here.

[Lieldoryn]

After chemical weapons killed about 100 people. More precisely, it seems to 87. Yes, it's a tragedy, but how many people died after the bombing, Russian Aleppo? And in other cities! What's the difference than I did. Every life is precious! It seems to me that if the Americans did not showed themselves to be weak then this tragedy would not have happened.

[Sex Video Chat VKcams.com]

After chemical weapons killed about 100 people.

Bombing Al Qaida manufacture of Sarin is legal.