If you were the President of the United States how would you deal with ISIS?

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

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

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.

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 (Join to see) The good old climate change (man-made AGW) mularkey. "Same as it ever was, same as it ever was"

I would put an asterisk by the troops. Our guys were never let off the leash. Let's try that first before we go scorched earth....literally....

The Romans, being very tired of the cronic problems in the middle-East, leveled Jerusalem, salted and plowed the earth with it, and killed boo-koo people, which solved the problem for almost 2000 years. I think we should do something similar to ISIS and parts of Iraq.

Now we are considering putting even more troops into Iraq.

I might add, Irael would be getting alot more support than they have now also and we'd know the truth about Benghazi.

Look up the movie"Deterrence" and the President's message in that movie was "TRY ME"

What most people fail to realize is that negotiations of any kind always boils down to two implied (or sometimes not so implied) words: "Or Else." There always has to be a credible threat of an alternative worse than negotiation, or else no one is ever going to listen to you. Negotiation w/o a credible "or else" is called "begging". This is the same when scolding your kids, as it is with buying a car, as it is in geopolitics.

So by all means negotiate. But you'd better be prepared to bring the pain if negotiations fail.

LTC Paul Labrador i agree.....this is what has been missing from our foreign policy for the last several year, in my estimation

Let's take the Putin approach where "Or else" translates to "We'll suspend Mrs. Putin's American Express card too."

No Beans and Bullets sure makes it hard. Good Choice.

I learned that cutting off the supplies for the enemy from studying and researching Romes fight with Gual when Rome essentially built a large wall around a Gaul encampment. I think was Caesar who allowed the enemy General and his Army to escape who were met by several Roman legions. So in this case, Caesar just cut off the enemy from receiving supplies instead of destroying the actual supply source.

Yup, immediate air initerdiction against all identified ISIS ground targets. They can't move, they can't fight....and the bad guys are out in the open now, making themselves easy targets.

It is fair to say Rome did not play games.

I completely agree with you Sir.

Here is another good one. The M67 Zippo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M67_Flame_Thrower_Tank

LTC Robert Halvorson - Sweet God almighty! I want you as my president, hell our king. That reads as if it came out of my own mouth. So many countries in the middle east want nuclear weapons and we have plenty of them so why not share? ;-) You go brother and if you don't run for office I will write you in.

Want a VP, sir?

If that campaign you described happened, I would volunteer to fire the first shot.