Posted on 01/16/2020 9:20:03 PM PST by Zhang Fei
In the early morning darkness of Jan. 8, several thousand U.S. troops huddled in Saddam Hussein-era bunkers in western Iraq as 11 ballistic missiles rained destruction on parts of the sprawling al Asad air base — Iran's promised "harsh revenge" for the killing of its top general, Qassem Soleimani, in a U.S. drone strike five days earlier.
The night sky lit up, and the bunkers shook as two waves of missiles struck over an hour and a half, sending a shockwave through the air and rattling some American troops who were above ground standing watch.
Even with the benefit of an advance warning of the attack, there was little the troops could do but duck and cover — and hope it would not be their day to die.
"All is well!" President Trump tweeted when the attack was over. "So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well-equipped military anywhere in the world, by far!"
But despite well over $350 billion spent in the past three decades, when they were most needed to protect U.S. forces and potentially prevent an escalation to all-out war, America's vaunted missile defenses were missing in action.
From the tours the military gave reporters two days later, it was clear that while a warning from the Iraqis gave the United States time to disperse its forces and lower the risk of casualties, the fact that no one died or suffered more than a concussion was also due in large part to sheer luck.
It was also apparent that there were no defenses against ballistic missiles protecting the U.S. troops at the base despite the rising tensions with and direct threats from Iran, which possesses a formidable arsenal of both ballistic and cruise missiles.
A request by the Washington Examiner for an explanation of
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Yeah, I’m sure it’s a complete coincidence no missiles landed where our troops were. Is anyone besides leftists and the media stupid enough to believe that? LOL
There was missile defense. They’re called bunkers.
There was missile defense. They’re called bunkers.
It is problematic at the Examiner. Can’t recall details, but it is not severely conservative.
Israel can’t even stop all the incoming rockets.
Afghanistan and Syria ASAP
How many billion dollars did Obama give Iran and they still shoot at us. ****
LOL that’s the reason Obama gave them the money!
Obama thinks when the NWO is ushered in that he will be one of the top mucky mucks.
Nope.
He’s expendable to satan.
He’s the biggest fool of all.
Did everything they wanted, and he will be repaid with pain suffering and death.
How hard would it be to build underground bunkers for these types of attacks?
That said, the sooner we leave these hellholes the better.
Ignorance, or knowingly advocating for policies that would be adverse to our interests?
A quick internet search puts the Patriot-3 missiles at 2-3 MILLION PER SHOT. You have to let cheap ground assets get hit at that price. If the target is cheaper than the missile, you don’t expect casualties, and you don’t need the target’s capabilities immediately and have time to rebuild... you let it get hit.
We rarely use them. It is doubtful there is a production line anywhere pumping them out by the hundreds due to the cost.
Israel pays through the nose for their missile defense. But because of the frequent use they undoubtedly have the largest economy of scale on the planet for manufacture and purchase of those defense missiles... and it’s still insanely expensive. Each of their Iron Dome shots is $100-150k. Those can only intercept short range missiles. The longer range Iranian cruse missiles may have required the use of the David’s Sling system (which may not even work at the moment) at a cost of 1 million per shot. So even if we had Israel’s defense systems in place and ready to go the costs would still have been massive to deploy it. Up to 15 shots to stop this attack. It’s not an easy decision even if the defense systems are in place.
Your reply is a breath of fresh air. It makes sense.
The idiot who wrote this article hasn’t a clue about the implications of what he advocates for. In fact, his article screams loudly to his ignorance.
and that explains the use of the phrase “troops huddled”. Makes it sound as if they are cowering in fear, rather than say “troops guarding”.
no mater what shelters available, someone still has to guard the perimeter, man the watch towers, and defend the base. Else if everyone was in a shelter, there could have been a follow up assault with horrific consequences.
Presstitute Propaganda pile of poop .....
...and, for the nonce, he looks more like cheese pizza than hot dogs.
You want to defeat the Iranian missiles?
Kill the Iranian leaders.
Offense is the best defense.
The Examiner had me fooled into thinking they did NOT have an agenda. Recently, they are featuring articles with decided left leaning intent. They seemed not to have any specific direction.
They had Byron York, who has ABSOLUTELY NO loyalty to any party or philosophy, and lately I have seen his name on articles from Townhall.
My opinion has changed after reading this dreck from McIntyre. They have definitely chosen a side. The DARK side.
What?
We stationed batteries of missile defense weapons ALL over Israel before, during and after the Desert Storm war.
Who do you think help develop the Iron Dome that protects Israel?
I am not saying that our troops did not have missile defense capabilities but if they did not, why the hell not. It is not the lack of them being available.
I don't know if I can buy this story or not.
Damn good points
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.