Look here, we are all overlooking the one simple solution to this problem. It is right in front of us. Ben Carson can pray for the answer and we elect him president and he will command our troops the way the lord jesus beemed into his head through an angel why he was sleeping. Come on, he passed his chemistry finals with the help of the lord. I am sure god is up there just waiting for us to elect him president so that we can all be saved. anyway, back to whatever you were doing.
Naturally. It denies them revenge but also implies you don't actually care enough about them to fight them in person. An old Shadowrun sourcebook suggested that mercenaries should take time to learn the local language rather than rely on a language skillchip, because the former sent the immediate message that you were at least invested enough in the region's fate to take time to learn about it. Plus you might get to understand their culture better. Both of which might help talk down a tense situation.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/15/french-jets-target-isis-in-raqqa/ Well, it is something but I don't call dropping 20 bombs as being "massive" like the headline claimed. More like a sad little dribble which won't amount to anything memorable. If they really want to wipe out ISIS as a holder of territory then you need to invade from Turkey and central Iraq, which would mean invoking article 5 and reaching out to places like Russia, India, China, and Japan (probably through a UN resolution authorizing force). So far that is not happening when that is exactly what should be happening. Come on, France, the ball is in your court. Do something.
It's a feel good measure, nothing more. The truth is, France isn't in a position to do more than that without some mobilization, which will take time. Only the US can launch a massive strike at will. That said, there's nothing wrong with getting the ball rolling right away. As for Article 4, if they plan on calling for a conference (which I think they will), they probably want it to be perfunctory, meaning that right now they are engaged in diplomacy, working to ensure that the rest of NATO is definitively in their corner. If that is not the case, they are better off going with an ad hoc coalition. Like I said, I'm sure they will get everybody on board, but best to line that up in advance.
An interesting approach would be to do a snatch-and-grab on Abu Baghdadi, who is their khalifa. Under the rules, he can only be removed if he starts ruling against the tenets of Islam, which he couldn't be doing because he'd be in Western custody and we wouldn't let ISIS hear from him. If they try to appoint a replacement then the replacement must be executed, because there can only ever be one for the entire umma, and the hadith and sunna explicitly says anyone who tries to claim the status while another khalifa is alive must be put to death. So they're screwed because only the khalifa can weigh in on certain weighty matters that are important to running a would-be caliphate, again because of rules laid down at Islam's beginning. There would be no precedent for it that I'm aware of because in its early days the world of Islam never got sacked.
If there were ISIS probably blew them up already. All the other monuments would be Islamic, so bombs away.
What is the population of the city? How many ISIS combatants versus civilian population? Is it possible to get a reliable figure? EDIT: Census states around 200,000 citizens but this was before the war. Likely the city has just become increasingly militarized. Ordinary people have to know staying there now is a very, very bad idea.
The U.S. killed 100,000 in Hiroshima with scarcely a second thought at the time And 87,000 in Tokyo with firebombs and even less thought (then or now).
Oh fun, all these idiots I know are posting on Facebook about the pin prick bombing, saying things like, "it's about time somebody does something about ISIS." Um, yeah, nobody has bombed them before now.
The USAF is largely responsible for the misconceptions about the usefulness of bombing. After the black eye they saw themselves getting in Vietnam, the USAF heavily promoted the idea of "surgical strikes". That is the idea that you could precisely destroy military only targets without causing civilian deaths.
nothing too valuable. it's mostly a modern shithole built in 20th century. it has some ruins but nothing of importance for all mankind (like palmyra, damn you IS psychopaths). it has a civilian population, however. raqqa would be a parking lot by now if only IS was there. those big strong manly men certainly love their human shields.
But here's the thing with the televangelists - they are jizzing themselves at the thought of Jesus coming back and kicking ass (not their asses of course!) But they aren't going to start blowing shit up and shooting up the joint in the name of Jesus.
Alright, and then we're back to my original suggestion. Level it. Don't leave brick on brick. This is the "capital" of the Islamic State in Syria. I know that Russia has at least 10 combat-ready Tupolev 160 Blackjack with a payload of 40,000 kilogram conventional ordinance each. That alone would be enough to completely incinerate the city. Want more? Ask the United States to send Lancers. This outtake from an article dated November 6th outlines the problem: So, in other words, we know they are there, but we are giving them time to retreat in an organized fashion and to set up shop in another part of the country to continue terrorizing the population of the country. This is what I meant when I talked about a swift and massive strike. Either you completely saturate the battlefield by pouring in thousands and tens of thousands of vehicles, giving them no quarter and no room to escape, or you bomb them to dust. Immediately. I'm not saying this because I'm some sort of bloodthirsty barbarian or because I'm sitting in front of the screen jerking off to pictures of dead terrorists. As I have said over and over, the tactics used in Syria perpetuate war. This suggestion is meant to end it and to end up sparing lives in the long run.
I don't think the TU-160 bombers have ever carried a fraction of that payload in actual combat operations. It is like claiming the B-1B can carry 120,000 lbs. of weapons but in actual combat the most it has carried has been 48,000 lbs. IIRC. 24 Mk 84s internally.
My point is, that at least in the west, the payload of western combat aircraft are often effectively overstated. For example, many combat aircraft like the Panavia Tornado and F-15 have their maximum warloads listed as 18,000 lbs. Now, in theory the aircraft can limp into the air with that kind of load, especially if they have a reduced fuel load. In truth, the effective payload that can be carried for most missions is about 8,000 lbs.
That's sort of an academic question. It may seldom or never have carried a full load but there's certainly nothing preventing it from carrying a full load. All modern jet planes can carry a lot of ordinance and the Tu-160 is the largest jet bomber ever produced. The real question is simply if a squadron of Blackjacks facing no viable anti-air resistance would be able to swiftly destroy a small city and I think we all know the answer to that.
True. But if you were the Russians would you risk losing your rare heaviest bomber? Forget air defenses, you might well lose some to simple operations. The U.S. lost a B-52 in the war with Iraq. And a B-1B in the second one. Neither in combat.
That's a stupid plan (but tempting). Say Raqqa has a population of 200.000. Say 4000 of those are IS, the rest are human shields. Now we, the west, bomb them into dust, leaving 200.000 dead bodies. What do you think the sons and daughters, the uncles and nieces and all the others are going to say to that? The Arab 'street'? Hail Great Satan, thanks for the lesson and we're glad our families could take one for the team? No they wouldn't. Such an atrocity would radicalize a lot of ordinary folks who may not even sympathize with the nutjobs. The IS may even hope for such a reaction because boy now that would certainly get recruiting going. Also, don't forget the millions of moderates who live in the west. Harassed here, bombed there, that's called 'trapped' and it's a sure way to push many over the line. IS is also a well oiled PR machine so they'd make sure everybody knows every dead child by name within minutes and never mind the pointed finger. The whole shebang is pretty much unwinnable as long as the other Arab states don't get their shit together and intervene with force. Of course they won't so the west will again have to be the bad guys, creating even more hate. In terms of military might, IS is no match even for a single second rate power. It can't withstand NATO for a week on the open battlefield (if they have enough courage and honor to even try; they don't). But ideas can't be killed. They fester. And then they explode. Maybe in your friendly neighborhood mall.
WTF? Ben Carson had Jeebus beaming chemistry and troop commanding and shit into his head when he was sleeping? I'm getting ripped off! All I dream about is aircraft explosions, dinosaurs, and chicks I'll never get to fuck in real life. Who the hell did I piss off?
That's what's so irritating about life as an American. By the time we hit our late 40's the only chicks haven't fucked are cartoon characters, so then you get all kinds of weird dreams about Betty Boop, Jane Jetson, Lois Griffin, and Marge Simpson, and it's freaky cartoon sex!
Assuming that indeed only 4,000 ISIS affiliates and supporters live in a 200,000 city, that would indeed be idiotic, but I seriously doubt this is the case. People can actually leave the city, they aren't held there against their will. Significant amounts of people have fled. Others have joined their ranks. I've already pointed out that it is impossible to wage a war without any collateral damage. Then again if the leadership and high-ranking commanders have already fled the city, as I suspect, then my suggestion has no merit whatsoever. It's too late. Side note, why do people keep saying that you "can't kill ideas"? We kill ideas all the time. That's called human discourse. It's almost as stupid as saying that "violence never solves anything." In one form or another, violence has solved practically every conflict in history.
Although it would be nice if we could just use their own rules to logic them into a big feedback loop, realistically I'm sure they'd change their rules in about two seconds. A terrorist organization doesn't survive as long as ISIS has by taking Lawful Stupid to quite that extent.
ISIS would just "capture" a couple of jihadists who came from the US and demand a prisoner exchange, and Obama would go through with the swap and make a moving speech about how he brought our people home.
