02-10-2014, 06:29 PM | #21 | |
Join Date: Mar 2010
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
Quote:
|
|
02-10-2014, 06:30 PM | #22 |
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The former Chochenyo territory
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
If they end up needing a Plan B for exfiltration, the 10 miles to the coast or 20 miles north to Turkey will probably look a lot more attractive than 50 miles south to Lebanon. Coastal options include local boats that can take them to Cyprus, up to Turkey, or meet up with a spec ops submarine. Turkey seems likely to be willing to help, if they don't have to do so publicly.
__________________
My gaming blog: Thor's Grumblings Keep your friends close, and your enemies in Close Combat. |
02-10-2014, 06:33 PM | #23 | |
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 |
|
02-10-2014, 06:37 PM | #24 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
Quote:
If the coast is only ten miles, yeah. But how many people would be needed to do the raid in the first place? A large enough party to overcome the garrison might not get out on a sub.
__________________
"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 09:19 PM. |
|
02-10-2014, 08:36 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Re: Mission for Spec Ops - Opinions?
Quote:
|
|
02-10-2014, 09:22 PM | #26 | |
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 |
|
02-11-2014, 01:48 PM | #27 |
Join Date: May 2007
|
"Why not Tomahawk?" Options --
Remember that all the world knows we have Tomahawks and that the US of A can zap any above-ground facility.
The answer is obvious. I'm not sure about the geography near Latakia but if some element of the local government wants to preserve a CBW facility putting it underground -- way underground -- would be logical. While the US does have nifty deep-penetrating bombs I don't think that Tomahawks carry them. You'd need to send one or more aircraft over (think said bombs are too heavy for current drones) and that would be a problem.* Also, if only the entrances were dug from the surface and the rest of the facility was branched out from the entry shafts, target planners might not know exactly where the key production areas are within the facility or how deep they are. (Both data are necessary for a successful deep strike with bombs. If not available, you could well just blow holes in the ground and not affect the facility.) Of course, a ground-penetrating nuclear weapon would deal with such a facility but there'd be a few minor political consequences with that . . . So you have two reasons to send in a ground team. One would be to get into the plant and determine the lay-out for the bomb-strike planners. The other would be just to blow up the entrance shafts (and release chemical weapons) to make use of the facility out of the question. (I wouldn't want to dig into a chemical-weapons production facility that had been blown up -- too much chance of a leak and hard to mine in a MOPP suit . . . *Sending over an F-22 or B-2 would be doable but there's a chance, even faint, of a loss (and at c. $2 billion a pop a B-2 would be a pricey loss.) Also, it would be pretty obvious who had hit the facility (gee, how many nations in the world have bombs that could go through 100 meters of earth and blow up reliably . . . ) So if you send in a ground team, suitably politically sanitized, you could claim it was almost anybody. Assuming, of course, that the opposition does not capture anyone alive. |
Tags |
covert ops, special ops |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|