Saturday, March 5, 2016
U.S. Is Sending B-52s To Bomb The Islamic State
FOX News: US sending nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to ISIS fight
The United States is sending nuclear-capable B-52 aircraft to drop bombs on the Islamic State terror group, defense officials confirmed to Fox News Friday.
The B-52 Stratofortress will start its first bombing campaign against ISIS in April, the Air Force Times reports. It's not clear how many B-52s or airmen will be involved.
Officials say the aircraft will replace nuclear-capable B-1 Lancers hitting ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria.
The Lancers returned to home bases in the U.S. in January. They flew only 3% of all strike missions against ISIS, but had dropped 40% of the bombs and other munitions. B-1s could loiter over the battlefield for 10 hours, much longer than jet fighters, and also could fly supersonic, reaching targets across Iraq and Syria within minutes.
Read more ....
Update #1: The B-52 could rise again, this time to fight ISIS (Air Force Times)
Update #2: US to send nuclear-capable B-52 warplanes to bomb ISIS as military ups campaign to eradicate terrorists in Syria and Iraq (Daily Mail)
WNU Editor: Overkill?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"Overkill?" I would say no. Remember when ISIS first arose it captured territory and held it more efficiently than the US military ever could have even before it was worn down from all of the continuing operations around the world it has been asked to carry out.
Also, these weapons systems could be being deployed not only against ISIS but as warning against Iran, Iraq, the Assad government in Syria, Russia, and others who are hostile to the United States. As such, overkill, probably not.
Now if part of the mission is to provide a deterrent to Russia, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, is such a deployment wise? Given the general incompetence that has been shown by American political and military leaders of late, would say probably not. At this time, the United States cannot match the military capabilities of Russia nor is there any possibility of closing this gap at any time in near to mid term.
As such, any military deployments designed to counter Russia must be carried out with this understanding. While America defeating Russia militarily is all but impossible (the Red Sea could part or something of this magnitude but such is unlikely), it may be possible to make the inevitable victory by Russia and its allies pyric enough that they would not consider the attack. This type of military posture in concert with actively looking for areas where we can cooperate with Russia in a way that would add value to them might just work to lessen tensions between us and Russia and their allies.
A few days ago you had posted an article suggesting ISIS might be in its "death throes." While ISIS is not in its death throes, it is not going to win. The math simply does not work for them as they've made enemies of pretty all of the major world powers. With that said, to use an analogy, a cornered animal that has no escape is often the most dangerous animal. ISIS remains VERY dangerous. As such, it is hard to imagine the deployment of any weapon system against them as "overkill."
Finally, as the defeat of Germany in WWII seemed inevitable, it became prudent for nation states to begin planning based upon how things would likely be after the war. Once ISIS is defeated, Russia will be the dominant power in Europe, Russia's close ally Iran will be dominant in the Middle East, Bashar Assad or Russia's handpicked successor in the mold of Assad is going to rule Syria, China will dominate the south China Sea and any efforts to alter this are going to be futile, and through their alliances with Venezuela, Cuba, Panama and others in Central and South America Russia will dominate the Americas with china in a secondary position. Additionally, the US dollar will lose its role as world's reserve currency.
All nations need to plan their foreign and domestic policies based upon these realities. How each country goes about this will depends upon the unique needs and interests of each country. As for America, policies that are based upon reality, as this analysis is, can still lead to good outcomes for us in terms of economic growth and advancing our national security. Failure to have reality based policies are unlikely to end well.
Hmmmm, it seems like not too long ago we heard that the US doesn't carpet bomb anymore or something to that effect. Doesn't the B-52 primarily drop dumb bombs in large quantities?
It can also drop laser or GPS guided bombs, or guided missiles,etc.
Not any more...
Generally speaking the US does not "carpet bomb", however, at least four things have changed recently. 1.) ISIS has pretty much alienated everyone now. As such, the US can now take much more of a "get tough" approach to this with less risk of backlash or "blow back" as it has been called. 2.) Paris, France was attacked by ISIS. While no one is going to help the US and many would gleefully undercut the US in spite of themselves, there does exist much friendship in the world for France. This allows the US a much less restricted environment in which it can operate. 3.) The EU nations are being overrun with hordes of "refugees" that have largely been created by a combination of ISIS and misguided and/or poorly executed policies by America and the "west." While EU nations would normally lead the chorus condemning "get tough" US actions such as carpet bombing, they feel a bit differently now that they find themselves being invaded. 4.)Russia has taken an active role in Syria. The Russians have been bombing the holy hel! out of everything opposed to the Assad government. In fact, if America took the same type of approach to this that Russia has taken, American officials up to and including POTUS would probably be facing war crimes tribunals right now. At the very least, the criticism directed against America by the media and most world governments would be VERY, VERY loud. To say that criticizing the US for this type of action while turning a blind eye toward the Russians or even applauding the Russians in this regard would be bad optics would be an understatement.
If the US has changed policies in this regard where carpet bombing would now be pursued, the four factors mentioned above likely account for this change. Now, as I stated earlier, if the purpose of deploying these planes is to somehow deter Russia or its allies, this would be a very bad idea.
As has been pointed out, the planes can drop laser guided, GPS guided bombs, or guided missiles. The B-52 was first commissioned in 1955. In this time, the plane has likely been upgraded so much that today's version very likely bears little, if any, resemblance to the model that was placed in service back in 1955. While there may be similarities in the exterior, the inside and the parts that make it do what it does are likely entirely different.
The u.s cant match russia military
Dont where to begin on this delusional piece.
Post a Comment