02-10-2014, 03:23 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
Quote:
|
|
02-10-2014, 03:26 PM | #12 |
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
It could be that the chemical weapon is easily dispersed by explosion, but also easily neutralized if you have access to it.
Infiltrate Neutralize Weapon Destroy Manufacturing Facility Exit |
02-10-2014, 05:12 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
[QUOTE=johndallman;17
Less militarised, but still significantly. Lebanon will be a better bet, but is not terribly safe territory. <fnord>[/QUOTE] Not safe for tourists. It might actually be more safe then most places for a band of special forces with a bad attitude. Of course I might not be keeping up on Lebanese politics. At least if they are already big enough to handle the garrison of the WMD complex.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison |
02-10-2014, 05:21 PM | #14 |
Night Watchman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
If it's known they're US special forces, that will (a) be linked with the attack in Syria and (b) there'll be plenty of people who want to capture or kill them. Anyone can get lucky with a gun. And once shooting starts, the Lebanese police and army will be wanting to catch them too, to find out what's going on.
|
02-10-2014, 05:27 PM | #15 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
Quote:
Maybe it would be best to brazen it out once the op is done. Cover-ups are blamed more for the covering then what they cover. It would probably go over reasonably well in domestic politics and as far as diplomacy goes, there will be no more then nominal protests and no one will really mind that an unpredictable player has lost access to WMDs.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison |
|
02-10-2014, 05:35 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
Quote:
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison Last edited by jason taylor; 02-10-2014 at 05:40 PM. |
|
02-10-2014, 05:38 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
That's my issue with the WMD factory attack. No one really cares if we strike them. Especially in Syria. Better to make the SAD op about either a) confirming it exists at that site, b) preventing them from making more by capturing those capable of manufacturing it.
|
02-10-2014, 05:42 PM | #18 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
Quote:
However the point remains; any other government you have to get permission to cross. Lebanon, just recovering from a warring states period, might conceivably be transitable. Also there are plenty of nooks and cranies in the mountains, and plenty of local tribal leaders to bribe and so on. More realistically, they couldn't prevent an air extraction from their territory and wouldn't have any reason to try once they were sure that was all that was intended. Protests can be made later.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison Last edited by jason taylor; 02-10-2014 at 06:20 PM. |
|
02-10-2014, 06:02 PM | #19 | |
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
Quote:
By "civilian population", I mean the neighborhood is largely populated with armed members of (if Lebanon) Hezbollah. Not everyone, sure, but a disproportionate number of the locals would be armed. Nearly everyone else would be actively friendly to Hezbollah, as everyone else would have been encouraged to go away. Given Israeli support, and the urgency implied by a risky op, a katyusha launch site or two would probably be in the area (Zelzals or something bigger from Syria might be better). From the Israeli POV, and it's important given the scenario, if they think the threat of the weapon's use is real, they'd rather just crush the place with artillery, as it's in range. However, there might be pressure from the US to keep things cool in the name of peace talks or some such. So, the Israeli's invite the US, and it's (to be frank) superior operational capabilities, to handle the problem in a PC way. Of course, if the PC's fail to neutralize the chemical agent in time, and let HQ know it's done...back to plan A. Last edited by Gedrin; 02-10-2014 at 06:06 PM. |
|
02-10-2014, 06:17 PM | #20 |
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
I thought about this a bit more and it occurs to me that Hezbollah might not be your bad guy of choice for Lebanon in 2014.
Frankly, the place is a mess. Hezbollah is currently under pressure from what the West would call "jihadi" forces. This is because of Hezbollah's relationship with Syria. There's a lot of regional politicking with Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Iran stirring it up. A more interesting scenario might be an "enemy of my enemy" situation. Hezbollah, using Mossad or Shin-bet intermediaries, wants a jihadi site taken out. Obviously, they'd rather not have the Israelis do it. However, they do need it done. America is almost as bad, but moving a step away might help keep Hezbollah fingerprints distant from the op. For Hezbollah, the ideal is that the site just die with no one knowing what happened. For Israel, chem weapons on border go away. For America, blowing up jihadis with chem weapons. For the jihadis, dropping chem weapons on TelAviv from Lebanon provokes a cataclysmic response from Israel, depriving Syria of allies and helping to define their struggle as Islam vs. Israel. To be honest, that part of the world is so weird right now, a Bond villain with a Bond plan to do Bond things wouldn't be beyond suspension of disbelief (except Moonraker...don't do that). |
Tags |
covert ops, special ops |
|
|