Drone Attack

I read an article today with some details about Trump's decision to not att ack Iran in retaliation for downing our drone. It said he was at the point of either saying attack or to stand down. Thankfully he stood down as man y people felt a military response was not warranted and not proportional po ssibly leading to further hostilities.

What worries me is, why did he let it go until the last minute before decid ing it was not proportional? Was this part of his strategy to draw his swo rd then in full view and then put it away without striking? Potentially th is could have been an effective threat.

Or was this truly a matter of Trump not having been informed of the number of potential deaths until he asked at the last minute? Why didn't he ask b efore ordering the preparations for the attack? Was this

With what we see Trump do in his everyday behavior I really can't tell whic h is the more accurate assessment of what really happened.

--
  Rick C. 

  - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C
Loading thread data ...

Let's just be thankful it wasn't Hitlary calling the shots or we'd all be dying from radiation poisoning by now.

--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via  
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Maybe there's some embarrassment. AIUI, the *very expensive* drone was flying at a high altitude yet seemingly was unable to avoid a SAM. Not good.

And a 'cyber attack'? I mean, we can all announce that, but who'd ever know?

Cheers

--
Clive
Reply to
Clive Arthur

ttack Iran in retaliation for downing our drone. It said he was at the poi nt of either saying attack or to stand down. Thankfully he stood down as m any people felt a military response was not warranted and not proportional possibly leading to further hostilities.

iding it was not proportional? Was this part of his strategy to draw his s word then in full view and then put it away without striking? Potentially this could have been an effective threat.

r of potential deaths until he asked at the last minute? Why didn't he ask before ordering the preparations for the attack? Was this

ich is the more accurate assessment of what really happened.

The most straightforward thing to do is to disable a port where they load o il. Then the Chinese come into play and the price of oil spikes. I think his tactic of keeping up the sanctions is winning because Iran is doing des perate things.

Reply to
blocher

It was said that after Stuxnet Iran had one of the world's greatest hacking ability, probably nothing like the $50b dollars for the US budget, but I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of an attack.

Also making a cyber attack, isn't this like poker, best keep your cards close to ones chest until you really need to show them?

--
Mike Perkins 
Video Solutions Ltd 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mike Perkins

I think the tactic of running into the road without looking is working because I haven't been knocked down (yet).

But it will be "interesting" if/when the Chinese build a railroad/pipeline into the area through Afghanistan.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

ttack Iran in retaliation for downing our drone. It said he was at the poi nt of either saying attack or to stand down.

No, he actually ordered the attack, then got cold feet at the last minute.

warranted and not proportional possibly leading to further hostilities.

Except of course the position of Trump and most Republicans has been that if Iran provokes us, we should respond with overwhelming force. So, we'll see how this sits with them. Already they are falling in line behind Dear Leader. That gas bag Hannity on Thursday night on TV was calling for bombing the crap out of Iran. On Friday, after Trump chickened out, Hannity was calling that brilliant, a smart move, that shows how cautious and careful Trump is. ROFL.

iding it was not proportional? Was this part of his strategy to draw his s word then in full view and then put it away without striking? Potentially this could have been an effective threat.

Oh please. It's been very obvious from day one that Trump is in way over his head and doesn't know WTF he's doing. But all Americans should be very worried over what they just saw. By Trump's own words, he ordered the attack and just ten minutes before missiles, bombs flew, he says he asked a general, will people die? Trump says the general said, I'll have to check and then came back and said about 150 will die. And Trump says then he called it off. If that is even partly true, then WTF is going on? How does our military brief the president on an attack like this and not include casualty estimates? How does a president not ask? (Sadly we know the answer to that, Trump is a moron). Imagine this loony tunes with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

r of potential deaths until he asked at the last minute? Why didn't he ask before ordering the preparations for the attack? Was this

ich is the more accurate assessment of what really happened.

Well, that alone tells you all you need to know, doesn't it? I agree, a lot of it doesn't make sense. Clearly Trump could not have asked a general just 10 mins before no return, with the general saying he needed to check on casualty estimates, and then getting an answer that fast. Also, what does it tell you about Trump that he's so stupid that he tweeted out what you're now talking about? He lies all the time, he could have said some new intel came in that lead to calling it off, leave it at that. Instead he exposed that he's an idiot.

Not convinced? Trump decided to do it again! From about Wed on the WH and Trump were saying that ICE was going to do a big nationwide raid on illegal aliens, ones that are recent arrivals, have been through circle jerking our courts and where the courts have issued FINAL DEPORTATION orders. It was going to be at least 2,000, across the country, this weekend. On Sat, nothing had happened, WH said it was coming Sunday. Today Trump tweeted, never mind, he's called it off. Why? Trump says Democrats asked him to do it, that they need time to work with the GOP on asylum laws and solving the border crisis. Say what? First, Democrats would love nothing more than the imagery of Trump's ICE rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them, so it's extremely unlikely they came to Trump, hat in hand. But more importantly, WTF does that have to do with deporting recent arrivals who have been through the courts with final deportation orders? What's Trump going to do with the Dems, give them amnesty? And that's not just 2000 for this weekend there are 145K that came in just last month! Trump, the tough talking BS artist ran promising to deport 11 mil+ illegals in just a year or two! Now he just wussed out and reversed himself on deporting a couple thousand.

Only question remaining is why the trumpets continue to believe the lying shyster.

Reply to
trader4

Clive Arthur wrote in news:qeossb$5bv$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Drones do not take evasive measures. They are not fighter jet agile.

They fly straight and true and typically go unnoticed. Their remote pilot would have seen the lock on and the subsequent launch detection and closing distance, but knows that there is not much chance of performing any succesful evasive measures against modern AA missile tech.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

attack Iran in retaliation for downing our drone. It said he was at the p oint of either saying attack or to stand down. Thankfully he stood down as many people felt a military response was not warranted and not proportiona l possibly leading to further hostilities.

eciding it was not proportional? Was this part of his strategy to draw his sword then in full view and then put it away without striking? Potentiall y this could have been an effective threat.

ber of potential deaths until he asked at the last minute? Why didn't he a sk before ordering the preparations for the attack? Was this

which is the more accurate assessment of what really happened.

How exactly do you propose that an unarmed drone avoid a SAM? The Russians demonstrated in the 50s that they could reach U2 altitudes and technology has only gotten much better since then.

Reply to
trader4

attack Iran in retaliation for downing our drone. It said he was at the p oint of either saying attack or to stand down. Thankfully he stood down as many people felt a military response was not warranted and not proportiona l possibly leading to further hostilities.

eciding it was not proportional? Was this part of his strategy to draw his sword then in full view and then put it away without striking? Potentiall y this could have been an effective threat.

ber of potential deaths until he asked at the last minute? Why didn't he a sk before ordering the preparations for the attack? Was this

which is the more accurate assessment of what really happened.

Fighter pilots can avoid a missile if they see the light burst on launch. A warning later doesn't give them enough time to dodge a SAM.

So why would you expect a slower and less agile drone to be able to outmane uver a SAM?

It doesn't matter if anyone else knows. The victims of the cyber attack kn ow.

--
  Rick C. 

  + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

was

y he

to

y

as this

e was

? Not

ever

Yeah, I was surprised they used the cyber attack as a means of annoyance. It's not like it is a weapon that can be used over and over. More like a 6 shooter or however many ways they can attack them. They will be prepared for that attack if we try to use it again. Maybe this was one that was fai rly lame and not a big deal to burn it.

--
  Rick C. 

  -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

attack Iran in retaliation for downing our drone. It said he was at the p oint of either saying attack or to stand down.

t warranted and not proportional possibly leading to further hostilities.

ed

Yeah, they are going to play it the way that want people to see it.

eciding it was not proportional? Was this part of his strategy to draw his sword then in full view and then put it away without striking? Potentiall y this could have been an effective threat.

?
w

I recall reading that during the Cuban missile crisis the White House recei ved a message from Russia that they would talk or something similar. Then they received a message that was highly belligerent. John and Bobby decide d to ignore the belligerent message and respond to the conciliatory message .

I'm trying to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. He does seem to be pret ty bad at many things, but I'm thinking negotiations may not be his weak po int. We will see. He is still talking very aggressive to Iran.

The thing I don't get is what bug was up his butt in the first place that h e imposed the sanctions. Iran has said several times they are willing to r eturn to that agreement. I understand our allies are saying we should retu rn to that agreement. What is Trump saying Iran did to violate the agreeme nt? If he can't state that clearly, how will Iran ever give him what he wa nts?

ber of potential deaths until he asked at the last minute? Why didn't he a sk before ordering the preparations for the attack? Was this

which is the more accurate assessment of what really happened.

ed

.

I agree that it is possible he simply changed his mind. But don't you thin k it is within his abilities to have planned this? Isn't part of his negot iating style to have another party deeply interested in making a "deal" and keep hammering them for more and more, then getting it? Isn't it possible this will work?

ts

Are that many really coming across the border? That's 5,000 each day! Whe re do they all go? Seems like that many would be very visible on their way to population centers.

I dunno...

--
  Rick C. 

  -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Hannity is an idiot. He flips around like a fish on the beach.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news:cce09c28-606f-459f-acdb- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Because they are not "trumpets", they are 'Trumpanzee RETARDS' Self retarded... the worst kind.

Like you with your 'libs' obsession. Absolutely RETARDED.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

I wouldn't know, but if it can't protect itself then it becomes little more than an expensive target drone.

Cheers

--
Clive
Reply to
Clive Arthur

It's irresponsible to use the military as a vehicle of brinkmanship if that's what it was. Intrinsically dangerous to the crews and personnel too, to start revving up all that hardware and loading up planes with fuel and weapons and then pull back. shoot. or don't shoot.

Reply to
bitrex

A commanding officer in e.g. WWII who ordered all the planes loaded up on the flight decks with fuel and bombs and powered up and then called it off at the last moment without an extremely good reason to report to the admiralty would be relieved.

Reply to
bitrex

Worse than that. It is as dumb as f*ck to use any kind of cyber attack against their air defences unless and until you intend to put real hardware in harms way. No point in having them go through their systems with a fine tooth comb looking for any remaining potential weaknesses.

Once you use cyber muntions in out the wild they are available for anyone who wants to to examine them in great detail.

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

Cursitor Doom does have some particulalry bizarre misapprehensions.

The train of logic that would make Hillary Clinton any kind of war-monger is particularly silly. Only Cursitor Doom and John Larkin don't notice the absurdities involved.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Clive Arthur wrote in news:qepuot$ia9$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Except that shooting one down is an act of war that warrants a response that may not be on an unmanned location.

Would you rather it had been one of our recon fighter jets and its pilot?

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.