deathscompanion1
Banned
After pointing out that a disproportionate response would kill thousands and destroy American prestige granted it was a worst case scenario but the point stands.
Capitol destroyed on 9/11
- Thread starter Alternate History Geek
- Start date
After pointing out that a disproportionate response would kill thousands and destroy American prestige granted it was a worst case scenario but the point stands.
Superaquaspiderbatman
Banned
It very much depends on what KIND of disproportionate response we're talking about.
The "plan" to destroy the airport was a deliberate throw-off (and actually a waste of everyone's time; Bartlett's as well as their own), because they knew he wasn't going to agree to it - so they once again presented him with the $0.05 plan.
Vaporising the Syrian Defence Ministry and/or Presidential Palace, on the other hand, would have been very much appropriate, with "minimum" civilian casualties, and very much legitimate targets.
deathscompanion1
Banned
Have you any idea just how many people would work in the Defence Ministry or the Presidential Palace?
Cleaners, Cooks, Mechanics in the motor pool, Guards, family members, clerks, drivers etc.. Your easily looking at dozens if not hundreds dead who have absolutely nothing to do with any of the regimes crimes.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Hey, if it didn't bother Luke to blow up thousands (or millions) of innocent workers on the death star, why should it bother the president to take out a few Syrians? I mean, if you can't follow the lead of the savior of the universe (ok, technically that title belongs to Vader, but Luke wasn't too shabby in that department) who can you follow?
To the point, though, OTL, US response was pretty disproportional to the blow al-Queda struck. Quite appropriate, IMO, but still disproportional.
To the point, though, OTL, US response was pretty disproportional to the blow al-Queda struck. Quite appropriate, IMO, but still disproportional.
Superaquaspiderbatman
Banned
But the targets would still be legitimate, and it's a far cry from carpet-bombing Damascus, or destroying the airport, cutting hundreds of thousands off from supplies.
It's certainly a disproportional response. That's the point, cf. the "....we come back with total disaster"-part. But it would be a legitimate response.
deathscompanion1
Banned
No it wouldn't.
The Syrians live next to fucking Israel the title holders at the Disproportionate response world final who happen to have an excellent air force which routinely carries out retaliatory strikes.
The Syrians would be pretty damn careful about what damage can be taken from airstrikes so apart from killing loads of people the damage would be temporary at best.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
9/11 was a Tuesday morning, so Congress would have been doing business. Anybody knew if OTL they evacuated the building.
Superaquaspiderbatman
Banned
Yes it would.
The Syrian government ordered an attack on American military personel.
That's casus belli in and of itself.
As far as targets go, it doesn't get any more legitimate.
The routine anti-Israel rant aside; what was the point of this?
Except they expected the $0.05 "payback" that Bartlett ended up ordering.
Any defence ministry is going to have lots of high-profile targets and lots of valuable data.
And as far as "temporary damage" goes - well, it's a heck of a lot better than what Bartlett ended up doing, which was even more temporary.
deathscompanion1
Banned
As targets go it's flashy kills loads of people and has no real military value.
Killing people to make a point is frankly disgusting strategy.
The anti Israel rant is that if your hostile to a state with a history of kicking your ass in wars with a great air force your going to be pretty fucking careful when it comes to locating your vital infrastructure. Those two targets will be well defended and have nothing irreplaceable.
The benefit was even though it was temporary it didn't shake up the region and cost more lives. I hate the idea of letting people get away with attacks but when you go for maximum retribution as opposed to what you need to do your crossing the line.
The targets were all military and cost no civilian lives or even military lives but they did damage the Syrian government and did not limit Americas other options.
He made the right call.
I am sorry,but during the "shock and awe" initial attack on Iraq, hundreds of cruise missiles struck Saddam's palaces and Iraqi ministries all over Iraq. We all saw it live on TV.
What about all those cleaners, cooks, mechanica, etc... Were they a legitimate target?
deathscompanion1
Banned
No they weren't, still war is not nor will it ever be clean. I understand the logic of the strikes even if I dislike them.
Then again there is a huge difference between 'peace time' and war time what makes sense in a war is cruel and unnecessary in peace especially considering the scenario is a demonstration of power and resolve.