Posted on Jun 17, 2014
CPT Student
19.9K
188
136
3
3
0
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/08/opinions/bergen-isis-boko-haram/index.html

ISIS has taken over media in a way unprecedented by terrorist groups. Now other terrorist groups are claiming support for ISIS. Should Congress declare war on ISIS? Can you even declare a state of war against an ideology? If you were President how would you stop the spread of ISIS?
Posted in these groups: Imgres DeploymentMultinational force iraq emblem  mnf i   1 5 IraqIsis logo ISISAl qaeda logo Al Qaeda
Edited 9 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 72
SSG Team Leader
13
13
0
It's hard to declare a war on something that doesn't foundationally exist. ISIS has no country that is directly related to it. It's a bunch of animals with very skewed sociopathic morals. Going to war with ISIS is like going to war on terrorism, an idea. We're already at war with that right now.
(13)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
Edited 10 y ago
At $110K each, the AGM-114 Hellfire is not a cost effective way to dispatch a few guys with a pickup truck mounted weapon, etc. I may be a bit out of date, but, for my money, Spooky, Spectre, Snake, Nape, and Willy Pete would be far more cost effective against any combatants, vehicles, artillery, command, supply lines/dumps, and/or emplacements in the desert. The last I checked, Mark 82 ran about $2K for each 200 pounds of HE on target.

The Hellfire's 18 pound shaped charge was designed to take out Armor - not pickup trucks.

While I like Glass - Spooky / Snake / Nape / MOAB are just as impressive at far lower cost.
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
10 y
Cpl Wagner. You make a great point there. The Hellfire weights in at only 100 pounds. There are some pretty big drones. But, the reality is they were designed primarily to carry optical & electronic sensors. They may well not have the hardpoints much less rotary dispensers to handle 50+ Snakeyes. My original thought was to use either fast movers or strategic bombers already well fitted out for this mission. In theory a drone may be in development. But it is not in inventory.

It was stupid of me to suggest without checking whether the existing drones could carry them. I would go back to my original concept.

I would still rather fight them on their territory.


Warmest Regards, Sandy
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
10 y
1920px x 47b 110204 f 1162d 119
It looks like the Navy's X-47B can carry 9 Snakeyes (4,500 pounds). The Navy's X-47C drone slated for development and testing could carry 20 Snakeyes (10,000 pounds). Nothing else in public view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B
Cpl Chris Rice
Cpl Chris Rice
>1 y
When I was in there were at least 14 variants of the AGM-114, and they all had different dollar values, and very unique uses. Further WP is a marker, and flying nape is really hazardous for the pilot, and puts them is rough situation if they don’t have a target in that they cannot land with firebombs (I forgot the nomenclature) and while it looks cool they really do not work well for anti-personnel in way that is not going to make the US look like jack-asses on CNN because they have no real guidance capability. The answer would seem to be best with the use of 2.75 rockets with the Flachette (Been awhile since I spelled that) as they are extremely antipersonnel/vehicle, and it would be cool if they could connect a GAU-17 to a drone (7.62 mm, 6 barrel Gatling [Lots of rounds all over the place]). Please do not get me wrong if you have better or newer experience let me know, heck at this point I may be talking out my ass it has been 4 years and a lot of beer.
(1)
Reply
(0)
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
9 y
X4
X6
X3
X9
1st Lt Bridget Philbin. Absolutely agree . . . and you are the expert here ! ! ! I was only responding to imagery of loose bands of indigenous fighters running pickup trucks in the open on what appear to be major roadways. Surgical penetration of opposition high value targets are always preferred . . . but I was seriously impressed by relatively low orbiting high capacity gunships and separately rolling thunder / Willy Pete and Napalm . . . with respect to psychological effects in the 1970's. I am very certain I am dating myself by referencing such antiquated tactics . . . you know better. Warmest Regards, Sandy
MAJ Commander
8
8
0
Blame them for Global Warming and have the IRS audit them. These seem to be the two most lethal COAs of the current administration.
(8)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Forensic Meteorological Consultant
SSgt (Join to see)
10 y
MAJ (Join to see) The good old climate change (man-made AGW) mularkey. "Same as it ever was, same as it ever was"
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close