If the US and partners were so concerned about a chemical weapon attack and its effect on the civilian population, did it really make sense to bomb the sites where these weapons are supposedly manufactured and stored? Would this not be taking the chance of releasing the chemicals into the environment and thus doing more harm than good?
Asked by
rojo (
24179
)
April 17th, 2018
And why did this not happen? Surely there would have been damaged stockpiles with the amount of munitions hitting the sites. And yet, nothing. No gas, no chemical trails, no poisons released into the air.
Are we that good, that precise? Did we totally vaporize everything existing there?
Or was there nothing in those sites to begin with?
I know which scenario I think more likely, how about your thoughts?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
8 Answers
One could make a good argument that this was all for show in the first place, to send a scare into Assad but not do anything that would piss of the Russians or Iranians. Consider that no one was hurt or killed. Why not? How do you launch 100 missiles and not kill anyone? did they know we were launching? Who told the workers to leave?
The other point is that – if you’re not going to shoot at the weapons factory, where are you going to shoot? Apartment buildings?
Face it, Trump and the military aren’t telling us the whole story.
WHAT???^^ Trump not telling us the whole story ,I have a hard time believing that cause Trump always tells it like it is. :)~
Gee, kind of like the last time Trump “presidentially*” launched Raytheon cruise missiles at Syrian bases in response to supposed chemical weapons use by Assad on the population.
Blowing up chemicals doesn’t make them not exist.
The did blow up the Raytheon stock value by $5 BILLION, however.
(* According to corporate news media.)
Just because the weapons are manufactured there does not mean all of the components to manufacture are there at that specific time. Besides, if the right chemicals were there, destroying the facility would only produce weapons grade material that those chemicals could make, whereas not destroying the facility would help to create even more chemical weapons, thus causing more harm.
When chemical weapons are a target, sometimes ordinance that causes extremely hot fire is used. I believe that it depends on what chemical they think they are targeting though. Each chemical likely responds differently to explosives, and fire.
105 tomahawks were fired and all hit and destroyed their targets with no civilian casualties.
Trump tweeted that the missiles were coming when Russia threatened retaliation. The information didn’t come from Russia.
Yes, we ARE that accurate. Even Pee tapes in Vladmir’s possession didn’t help the Russians apparently.
No Russians or Syrians were killed or injured, no chemicals or chemical weapons were destroyed, probably most of the equipment was removed prior to the attack, a few buildings were smashed, all for a paltry 200 million dollars and last time it happened a couple of older planes and some asphalt runways were damaged. I would say the PeePee tapes DID help out.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
