"Limiting Collateral Damage. " Topic

Drone, plane, the weapons used will be the same.

How would collateral damage be limited if a drone still fires a Hellfire or drops a 250lb bomb on a target?

I think that adoption of drones and future fully AI flying craft will embolden nations to take more aggressive actions since pilots and US$100-$400 million planes are no longer at risk. There might even be plausible deniability if drones can't be traced back to a nation.

Kyoteblue:
Limiting collateral damage/innocent deaths is difficult even with precision weapons for two reasons. One the target area may be a kinetic environment where innocents move around and intermingle with the target(s) of the strike. They could easily wander into the cross hairs and or be close enough to be killed due to proximity. The second problem is defining what an enemy combatant is. Let's say you are targeting Malik Shah. Malik himself is clearly defined by you as a combatant. But what about his driver Ibrahim? What about his good friend and physician Iskander who is almost always by his side? What about his 17-year old son Omar and his wife Khatiba? How large a circle of people who support and are in proximity to Malik the target are considered co-combatants or enablers and are therefore considered legitimate targets?
The problem with drones is that it makes killing individuals easier and thus encourages states to kill individuals rather than military personnel or destroy military targets. Should a state have the power to decide to kill someone just because it disagrees with their behaviour and without some sort of public due process? In a world where individuals are more and more dwarfed by the events going on around them it is a pretty sobering and chilling thought that a foreign state can just decide to kill you without any kind of public due process and do so in your home country. No state or group of people within a state should be able to exercise such power without public scrutiny of their motives, decisions and methods. Otherwise they might be tempted to turn the drones one others who, while not enemy combatants, become inconvenient to the state and its interests.
Rod Robertson

The smart weapon carried by the drone will have to be extremely accurate AND have a small blast radius. The movie 'Eye in the Sky' might interest you.

link

It's always going to be difficult – innocent people will always get hurt.

the trick is minimising those losses… and some on these threads don't seem to regard that as a priority.
Events in Pakistan suggest that some in the Air Force don't place a high price on non-American lives either.

But it's the reason why I find if difficult to understand why the Americans don't use Brimestone. It's exceptionally accurate and has a tiny blast radius making it ideal for drone missions.

As of February Brimstone hadn't really lived up to expectations:

Exclusive: RAF Brimstone Missile Has Not Killed Any Isis Militants In Syria
( link )

Which is somewhat amusing given the hype in previous articles about Brimstone:

The U.K. Will Attack ISIS With a Missile the U.S. Could Only Dream Of ( link )

Brimstone: British missile envied by the US for war on Isil ( link )

Brimstone has a <1 CEP. Hellfires are ~4m CEP. It's not a HUGE difference, and given the time/cost of certifying a new piece of ordnance for aviation operations, it's probably just not worth it.

Oh please, Bangor.

We can say the same about the British in WWII, in their area, night bombing campaigns. So, sorry, you don't have any moral high ground to stand on.

War is a dangerous and dirty business, and civilians, especially when the enemy uses them as human shields, always suffer during war.

We've already been over the Brimstone issue. Our PGMs cost a lot less, and are US made.

Do you own stock in the company, or work for them?

To be fair that Huffington Post article is not exactly balanced as it only talks about what Brimstone hasn't done rather than what it has (there are other things to use it against apart from people)

Rumour has it the DoD is thinking again about obtaining it due to some capabilities it has that Hellfire doesn't

Counter insurgency ops are always messy, especially with civilians. Nature of the beast and all. Counter insurgency on the scale of the current fighting with ISIS more so. There's fertile ground in a discussion on whether these operations mount to an actual war, and I'm finding a lot of talk about "drone warfare" and its current and future impact to be limited – i.e how do current drone missions resemble the mission profile of drone systems in a shooting war in Europe or North Asia? I totally get what folks are saying about drones and funky new nerf missiles vs religious nut case insurgents, but what about drones and funky new nerf missiles vs a mechanised infantry division?

Hellfire's don't seem so out of place in that scenario.

Mako – WW2 was 70 years ago. Things move on.

The USAF is running out of missiles that can be fired from a fast jet.. as Jemima Fawr has already stated.

Sooner or later you're going to ge tin a war where drones can't be used.

Noble – you make the mistake of limiting rAf invovlement to Syria.

The vast majority of RAF activity is in Iraq, where I believe Brimestone is extensively used.

McWong – if a proper war, drones are, so far as I'm aware useless because they're exceptionally vulnerable to aircraft and SAMs.

Looking at the latest info from the RAF, last month the main weapon of choice was the Paveway IV – reflecting the open terrain in which I'm guessing the Kurds are fighting in.

They used Brimestone once – to take out an ISIS observation post in an urban setting.

Different tools for different situations. For many, hellfire is perfectly OK, and the RAF uses them.

It's just a case of having the correct tool for the job required.

This assumes, of course, you think the lives of civilians are worth saving.

Collateral Damage is and will be a problem with the types of weapons now used and the tactics of the individuals targeted by them.

I don't envy the people that have to make the decision to use them. You only get to choose between crappy options.

A. – Kill the target and risk injuring or killing individuals that are de facto human shields.

B. – Because of the risks in A., allow the target to continue to injure and kill the targets of their choice.

Terrorists are terrorists because they are willing to kill innocent non-military people to achieve their ends. The same willingness to kill innocents might make states, their leadership and drone operators state-terrorists if collateral damage occurs. They make a conscious choice to inflict collateral damage when pressing an attack home. What defines a terrorist act? What defines a military act? Is targeted killing just a euphemism for assassination and if so is assassination a legitimate military act? If drones are operating in a foreign state with which the drone operating state is not at war, are drone killings an act of war? Are drone killings outside of declared war legal acts or can military and political leaders who carried them out be held criminally liable for their decisions and actions?

What constitutes an enemy combatant? Any male or female persons of military age who are associated in some way with a target? Can enemy combatants be citizens of the drone operating state? Can enemy combatants be citizens of the drone operating state, located in the drone operating state at the time of the drone attack?

These question are important as states with drone capability are more and more targeting people for their individual actions rather than targeting states for their collective action. And those individual actions do not have to be violent. Drones have targeted and killed financiers, lawyers, propagandists, medical and for lack of a better umbrella term "boosters" of enemy ideologies and movements. Should the price of resisting a foreign power's interests be death if you yourself do not actually use violence but support those that do?

What responsibility do states who are targeted by drone strikes have to their dead citizens and to the future targets who still reside within the target-state's borders? Could Canada or Mexico use stealthy drones to kill gun smugglers or drug smugglers in the USA. If so, what about targeting the business leadership of gun manufacturing and the lawyers and financiers of drug smuggling in the USA? Would they be legitimate targets? What about corrupt law enforcement or politicians who protect such smugglers; could they be targeted?

This is a can of worms which few are willing to think about and fewer are willing to debate. The consequences of not debating this could be dire.

Rod Robertson.

True that.

Rod – very good points, but drones have, so far as I'm aware, the life expectancy of a soap herring around aircraft and/or a decent SAM system.

So the criminal fraternity of the USA can rest easy from the threat of summary Canadian justice :)

Bangorstu:
The point was more rhetorical than practical. Drone warfare must seem very different when you're on the receiving end of it. In the case of Canada, the stealth drone would more likely deliver a sternly worded but respectful request to stop the nefarious behaviour and then a sympathetic apology for interrupting the target's regular routine. Then if they don't stop we poison them with a Tim Horton's doughnut laced Marmite or worse still Vegemite! The Bulgarians have nothing on us!
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

I have to agree with much has been said here.

I've said this before with insurgencies, they hide among the locals and don't wear uniforms … So targeting becomes a problem. And the killing of non-combatants thru CD plays into the insurgents' "cause", etc. Or in the case of Daesh they kill them anyway to spread their brand of terror etc. …

So the criminal fraternity of the USA can rest easy from the threat of summary Canadian justice :)

A standard stu anti-US comment … even if it was made in "jest" …

As I have repeatedly have said, IF THE US/WEST WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT CD. Places like Raqqa, Mosul, etc. would look like the dark side of the Moon. And no nucs would have to be used. But unlike Daesh, AQ, etc., the US/West does not make killing non-combatants policy.

All that being said, in Closed terrain, like Urban, things can get quite confusing and messy. And in some cases the non-combatant no matter how much the US/West attempts to stop it CD does and will happen. All we can do is limit it.

As long as the enemies' tactics include the classic/ standard Unconventional Warfare techniques of living/moving/hiding among the locals. CD will inevitably happen … sadly …

kyoteblue – one would hope, but I don't think it will in the current areas of conflict where the would be targets blend in with the population by design. Also AQ, Taliban and others often bring their families or supporters families with them which end up as being part of the civilian casualties. They also store weapons and use buildings that are not normally targeted (re: hospitals, schools, etc).

But it's the reason why I find if difficult to understand why the Americans don't use Brimestone. It's exceptionally accurate and has a tiny blast radius making it ideal for drone missions.

Brimstone and other Smart Munitions are NOT MAGIC …

Noble713 23 Apr 2016 1:54 a.m. PST

As of February Brimstone hadn't really lived up to expectations:

Exclusive: RAF Brimstone Missile Has Not Killed Any Isis Militants In Syria
( link )

Which is somewhat amusing given the hype in previous articles about Brimstone:

The U.K. Will Attack ISIS With a Missile the U.S. Could Only Dream Of ( link )

Brimstone: British missile envied by the US for war on Isil ( link )

Brimstone has a <1 CEP. Hellfires are ~4m CEP. It's not a HUGE difference, and given the time/cost of certifying a new piece of ordnance for aviation operations, it's probably just not worth it.

Good post Noble … Worth rereading …

one would hope, but I don't think it will in the current areas of conflict where the would be targets blend in with the population by design. Also AQ, Taliban and others often bring their families or supporters families with them which end up as being part of the civilian casualties. They also store weapons and use buildings that are not normally targeted (re: hospitals, schools, etc).

Reinforces what I and others have said. If the family is providing "aid & comfort to the enemy", food, etc. … that makes them a target … some would legitimately conclude … unfortunately …

– if a proper war, drones are, so far as I'm aware useless because they're exceptionally vulnerable to aircraft and SAMs.

Drones may be more vulnerable in "a proper war"[you mean conventional], but they will still have there uses. We have Suppression of Enemy Air Defense Systems tactics and techniques to lessen air asset loses.

That being said, the Muj with US supplied MANPADs did shoot a number of Soviet helicopters down. As did the VC using less high tech weapons. So in light of today's situation. That does not shut the door on Drone usage. If anything it may make it more useful. As you'd rather lose a drone which is less expensive than a piloted aircraft. Plus the overwhelming consideration is not losing airmen. Along with killing the enemy …

Events in Pakistan suggest that some in the Air Force don't place a high price on non-American lives either.

This assumes, of course, you think the lives of civilians are worth saving.

This assumes you believe all in the military are murdering butchers. The likes of Daesh, AQ, BH, AS, etc. …

AGAIN …
As I have repeatedly have said, IF THE US/WEST WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT CD. Places like Raqqa, Mosul, etc. would look like the dark side of the Moon. And no nucs would have to be used. But unlike Daesh, AQ, etc., the US/West does not make killing non-combatants policy.

What constitutes an enemy combatant? Any male or female persons of military age who are associated in some way with a target?

You're thinking like an academic not a realist … Anyone who trying to kill "us" directly or supporting those whose are trying to kill "us" … is the short answer.

My Mother built P-39 Aircobra parts during WWII. If the enemy could have bombed the factory where she and other "Rosy The Riveters" worked would most likely be considered a legitimate target. Sorry Mom …

The Allies bombed many factories, etc., in towns that were producing Axis equipment, supplies, etc. And yes, making food, ie.: Bratwurst sandwiches to feed the troops are considered "supplies" …
Now we are not talking about the WWII paradigm where bombs were very inaccurate. So to take out a factory you'd have to destroy everything around it. For miles in some cases. Again today we are much more accurate … BUT CD will still happen … it's a fact of war … again, all we can do is limit it as much as possible … And we, the West do …

Unless there are troops on the ground controlling the air fairly high levels of CD are inevitable. When you're relying on SigInt, HumInt and the UAV camera you will rarely have the whole picture. I think a lot of people would be surprised at the lengths we go to to minimise CD, the targeting process is lengthy and involved and can be a pain when you can positively ID baddies but CD stops any engagement. Unfortunately it's the price we pay for being the good guys.

Legion – I will say that if the USAF civilian casualty figures for Syria and Iraq are to be believe,d they're doing an exceptional job. The rAF claims to have killed no-one, the USAF around 40 people since the bombing began.

Operating in desert areas obviously makes life easier in this respect.

But in the context of drone attacks, no-one is trying to kill you. You're taking out unsuspecting people.

Pakistan rather proved that the administration regarded family members of bad guys as legitimate targets.

BTW, if the USAF started turning Raqqa into the 'dark side of the moon' you'd be facing war crimes trials and indeed the Syrian Air Force.

And their Russian friends.

American has neither the right nor the ability to do whatever the hell it wants without consequences.

BTW, if the USAF started turning Raqqa into the 'dark side of the moon' you'd be facing war crimes trials and indeed the Syrian Air Force.

And their Russian friends.
-----------------
not sure (and obviously not wanting to start a world war) that the US would be too concerned at that – the Russians might be big fish when bombing ISIL or FSA but i doubt they match up to the Americans. The latter could probably just bribe Russian air defence crews not to do their jobs – after all in Afghanistan/Chechenya many Russians showed no compunction about selling weapons to the enemy

So, let's pose a new hypothetical situation. A foreign terrorist is on Western soil but the Western government cannot get the terrorist without the terrorist doing great damage to a city's population and infrastructure. If the terrorist becomes aware of an attack he will trigger great damage. He is believed to have rigged some sort of deadman's trigger. The only way to stop him from doing greater damage is to utterly destroy the building which he is occupying completely. But there are many innocent western citizens in the building who will die in the attack. Do you bomb the building and kill the innocents in order to limit the greater potential threat of wider death and damage? Is western collateral damage acceptable? Now let's say the terrorist is not foreign but a domestic terrorist. Does the attack still happen? Now let's say that the terrorist's weapon is not physically destructive but is a cyber-weapon that will cause great, immediate and long-term harm to the western nation's metropolis. Does the attack still go through? Finally, what if the terrorist weapon is knowledge, knowledge which will topple the state and lead to civil uprisings and or civil war. Still attacking and accepting the deaths of innocents. Where do we draw the lines?
Rod Robertson.

Legion 4:
You are fond of saying that the insurgents hide among the locals. But often that is not completely true. Oft times the insurgents ARE the locals and by your widened definition of targetable persons, many of the locals! With each additional attack more locals become insurgent. Where will you stop the killing? When every last local is dead or kowtows to your military might? You can't destroy hate or ideas with explosives. The most you can do is shock a population in momentary inaction and capitulation. But when they or their children recover from the shock, they will come back at you with greater determination and violence. This only delays the inevitable.
Rod Robertson.

A couple of years back I saw a robot dragonfly.
I bet someone somewhere is working on a drone like that with a camera and directed charge.

So the first question is "who qualifies as collateral damage?"

Are the people who hate you and who support those who are trying to kill you (but are not active combatants) targets or are only the ones who are (or have or are planning to) attack you?

WWII did not make any distinction between the two, now major gov'ts seem to.

Only real way to avoid all collateral damage in a war is to not fight the war. This is not really a good option when someone is shooting at you.

As far as the RAF goes,anyone remember this topic? TMP link

Granted, not much use of Brimstone, but look at the context when it was used:

' to deliver 2 precision attacks with Brimstone missiles on the terrorists, then, once they attempted to retreat, to strike the remainder of the Daesh group with a Paveway.' – minimise collateral damage by using Brimstone, then once flushed out go to Paveway.

' provided close air support to Iraqi security forces as they advanced near the city of Hit. A terrorist observation post was identified and the Tornado flight scored a direct hit with a Brimstone missile.' – close support using Brimstone to ensure that only the target was damaged.

The point being you use whatever is appropriate – and in a battle situation, well, how many civilians are liable to have been in the target area here:

'a very successful strike on Monday night, delivering 8 Paveway IVs which destroyed the main warehouse and 3 support buildings.'

You can't always avoid collateral damage, just minimise them – but not to the extent of losing the war as a result!

We lose the war, when collateral damage keeps the war going.
We need to build better weapons that limit it to just the combatants.

You've never really studied the psychology and thought process behind warfare have you?

"Building better weapons that limit it to just combatants?"…

*RME

But in the context of drone attacks, no-one is trying to kill you. You're taking out unsuspecting people.

What ? The drone strikes target enemy personnel and equipment … Go back to what I said about moving/living/hiding among civilians.

And If they are "the enemy" … just because they are not shooting at you at that time does not negate them from being "the Enemy" …

Pakistan rather proved that the administration regarded family members of bad guys as legitimate targets.

Go back to what I said about moving/living/hiding among civilians. Reread what I previously posted above … If the family is providing "aid & comfort to the enemy", food, etc. … that makes them a target … some would legitimately conclude … unfortunately … Or … And yes, making food, ie.: Bratwurst sandwiches to feed the troops are considered "supplies" …

– I will say that if the USAF civilian casualty figures for Syria and Iraq are to be believe,d they're doing an exceptional job. The rAF claims to have killed no-one, the USAF around 40 people since the bombing began.

They always do an exceptional job of supporting the ground troops, etc. …

Operating in desert areas obviously makes life easier in this respect.

What are you talking about ? Most strikes occur in or around built-up areas. Where the insurgents live/hide … Driving around in the open desert will get you killed …

BTW, if the USAF started turning Raqqa into the 'dark side of the moon' you'd be facing war crimes trials

Yes, as I said, we attempt to limit CD. So that wouldn't happen … And BTW who would charge the US ? The Hague, the UN ? Many of the UN members have war crimes/crimes against humanity, etc., charges already. Including 2 of the P5, China and Russia. Add Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. …

and indeed the Syrian Air Force.

Right … the Syrian AF would be no match for the USAF & USN.

And their Russian friends.

The Russians will probably level Raqqa any way …

American has neither the right nor the ability to do whatever the hell it wants without consequences.

Stop being so out in left field. The USA does not do what ever the hell it wants. If you have not noticed. What playbook are you reading ? Who wrote it, Chomsky ?

Legion 4:
You are fond of saying that the insurgents hide among the locals. But often that is not completely true. Oft times the insurgents ARE the locals and by your widened definition of targetable persons, many of the locals! With each additional attack more locals become insurgent. Where will you stop the killing? When every last local is dead or kowtows to your military might? You can't destroy hate or ideas with explosives. The most you can do is shock a population in momentary inaction and capitulation. But when they or their children recover from the shock, they will come back at you with greater determination and violence. This only delays the inevitable.
Rod Robertson.

Rod … don't try to lecture me again on COIN, guerilla, insurgent warfare, etc., again … The insurgents are locals ?!?!?! REALLY !?!? Did Mao and Che' and the VC know about this ?!?!? Holy Cow ! What a revelation !
So maybe we can just ask the insurgents nicely not to hide/move/live among the locals. But the locals are insurgents and support the insurgents … so I guess we'll just let Daesh, AQ, and their radicalized supporters, etc., continue to commit terrorist attacks on the West ? Got to admit it, you nailed it ! All this time we were doing it all wrong !

Only real way to avoid all collateral damage in a war is to not fight the war. This is not really a good option when someone is shooting at you.

foxweasel

Unless there are troops on the ground controlling the air fairly high levels of CD are inevitable. When you're relying on SigInt, HumInt and the UAV camera you will rarely have the whole picture. I think a lot of people would be surprised at the lengths we go to to minimise CD, the targeting process is lengthy and involved and can be a pain when you can positively ID baddies but CD stops any engagement. Unfortunately it's the price we pay for being the good guys.

stu, rod, … Foxweasel was a UK FAC in A'stan and Iraq IIRC. He knows what he is talking about … he was there. Now everyone is entitled to an opinion, but IMO, his opinion on the topic trumps both of yours. HE was there …

We lose the war, when collateral damage keeps the war going.
We need to build better weapons that limit it to just the combatants.

Unless you can read minds … this won't work …

Some things to think about:
youtu.be/-E97Kgi0sR4

youtu.be/f9IaKWWVW6Y

youtu.be/Kw1vxsd_Pwc

Most strikes occur in or around built-up areas.

The operative word being 'around'…..

So long as you're not actually in a building, most modern munitions can be very precise. The difference being blast radius.

And civilians tend not to hang around a weapon that is being used.

As for the USAF always doing an exceptional job – I know a lot of British troops and Afghan medical personnel who would disagree.

As would the USAF… given their reports into the matter of the Afghan hospital.

Regaridng the limits of US power – if the US did decide to turn Raqqa into a smoking ruin, risking a general war…

…what bases would you be using? Because I doubt the Iraqis or Turks would be pleased. And you sure a shell wouldn't be using any British bases for war crimes either.

Stu
I think you might be a tad too hard on the USAF. From what I have read many UK soldiers in Afghan, were, for all the jokes about the USAF, very grateful actually for US CAS when things got dicey given the small size of the RAF contingent and the not overly reliable nature of some of NATO allies. Equally re use of bases and information, the 5EYES relationship might make the US and UK rather closer than some might want to think

Terrorists are terrorists because they are willing to kill innocent non-military people to achieve their ends.

What does that make western governments eager and willing to actively support brutal, ruthless, and even murderous autocrats knowing full well such support will result in the torture and deaths of innocent non-military people?

We're now backing the military dictatorship in Egypt. We quite deliberately support countries in the PacRim who deal in human trafficking and slave labor (literally) because we want access to cheap labor. And we back the Saudis, a murderous government who literally sponsors terrorists and actively fights to suppress pro-democracy movements in neighboring states.

If you scratch the surface you quickly realize that we merely outsource our terror programs implemented to achieve our economic goals, whether access to oil or cheap labor.

We don't have western citizens doing the torture and killing of civilians directly (in general) because we can get locals to handle it for us as it's in their interests too. It was like that during the days of "bannana republics" and it's still like that. And the blowback for such support is often massive and long lasting.

Good examples: Cuba and Iran. Both experienced popular revolts against corrupt, western backed dictatorships…and the results were terrible too.

Oh and Legion 4 we don't have to read minds, just their facbook, blog to identify them.

Very unrealist … not every jihadi in every terrorist organization has a facebook page. And nothing stops them from … again … moving, hiding, living among non-combatants. And again … as I said many of those non-combatants support them …

So long as you're not actually in a building, most modern munitions can be very precise. The difference being blast radius.

Please don't lecture me on use of air assets and capabilities … I trained to use such. You have a pie-in-the sky view and opinion about this. Again … 1) Smart Munitions are not MAGIC … 2) Reread Foxweasel's post … again he was there.

And civilians tend not to hang around a weapon that is being used.

Because when drones and CAS goes in we let them know we are coming. So both the target and everybody can get out of the way. Your comments show your lack of knowledge of this type of military op and most in general.

As for the USAF always doing an exceptional job – I know a lot of British troops and Afghan medical personnel who would disagree.

Again we have covered this ground, the fog of war and accidents happen. The USAF's record demonstrates it is very effective when allowed to be properly employed. The Doctor's without Border's hospital in the middle of an urban combat zone was an unfortunate error. And Again … the enemy hides/moves/live among non-combatants … Do you read anything I post ? We seem to be talking around in circles. AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN … And I know of many, many incidents that CAS has saved those troops on the ground. By killing many of the enemy … that is the way it works.

As would the USAF… given their reports into the matter of the Afghan hospital.

Again a one off accident … re-read my above statements … And GNREP8's :

Stu
I think you might be a tad too hard on the USAF. From what I have read many UK soldiers in Afghan, were, for all the jokes about the USAF, very grateful actually for US CAS when things got dicey given the small size of the RAF contingent and the not overly reliable nature of some of NATO allies. Equally re use of bases and information, the 5EYES relationship might make the US and UK rather closer than some might want to think

Rod I Robertson

Some things to think about:
youtu.be/-E97Kgi0sR4

youtu.be/f9IaKWWVW6Y

youtu.be/Kw1vxsd_Pwc

Again … we have covered all this before. Your opinions and comments demonstrates you unrealistic, academic, etc., view of the reality of the situation. Some things to think about … again.

If you scratch the surface you quickly realize that we merely outsource our terror programs implemented to achieve our economic goals, whether access to oil or cheap labor.
------------------
on that basis then we are all legitimate targets for terrorists and have no right to complain as who votes for these govts. Moral equivalency? I dont agree

Regaridng the limits of US power – if the US did decide to turn Raqqa into a smoking ruin, risking a general war…

…what bases would you be using? Because I doubt the Iraqis or Turks would be pleased. And you sure a shell wouldn't be using any British bases for war crimes either.

Raqqa is Daesh's HQ and part of their center of gravity. I'm not advocating doing such … but make the point if we wanted to we can do such. IMO, the Syrians now with Russian support will take it sooner than later.

What bases you ask ? B1s, B2s and B52s have very long ranges. And the Israelis have airbase well within range as well.
Oh and don't you forget … CVNs … look it up if you don't understand. Not to mention FFGS, SSBNs etc., …

BTW, What war crime would be committed bombing Raqqa ? Bombing the enemy locations in the city, known and suspected is a standard tactic. We wouldn't waste ordinance or increase CD to do it. Regardless … CD will and could happen.

But again … We have the potential to do it. But don't … because we are concerned about CD. And that is the overriding reason we don't. And our attacks are much more circumspect and measured.

Who would we risk a general war with ? The Syrians ? They are not a real threat. The Russians ? They and the Syrians are going to trash Raqqa like they have other cities they have "liberated" … So who or why would they declare war on ? They have to and want to capture Raqqa too. It's in Syria, Assad has to take it to reclaim his territory … You understand that ?

You doubt the Iraqis or Turks would be pleased … I'm pretty sure they could care less. The Turks have the 2d largest military in NATO. If they wanted to they could take Raqqa. Why they would escapes me. They are more concerned with killing off their traditional enemy the Kurds.

And Iraq … their combat abilities are marginal at best. Would they tell the US to leave Iraq. Which would mean much if not all of NATO would then leave as well. So the Iraqis would have to hope the Persians pick up the pace to help remove Daesh from Iraq. But so far neither have demonstrated the ability to do so. Even with all the NATO support.

The Iraqis have told the Turks to leave. But we see … they are still there. The Iraqis can't take on jihadis primarily armed with Toyota Pick Ups. How well would the do against that Turk Mech Bn or Bde there ? Not well … I'm sure.

Stu do you even think thru any of your comments ? You seem to have about as much knowledge of the Geo-political situation as you do about military ops in general. Which from what I can tell revolves around how many times you can try to accuse the US of war crimes.

Which is laughable considering how many others in the region and other locals many of whom are UN members, already have committed human rights violations. At least ! Not to mention real war crimes and crimes against humanity that have committed by Syria or the Russians ?

If you are going to try to drag the US into war crime or human right violations accusations … You're going to have to go over all the others already in line. Deash, AQ, BH, AS, Syria, Saudi Arabia, to name a few.

Also note if the US is not involved … NATO can't do much on their own. Whether you like it or not …

GNREP – well the USMC have a better reputation…. but yes, the USAF usually do a good job. My main issue is the lack of transparency when they inevitably screw up.

And indeed the distinct impression they don't actually care.

Legion – it would be nice if you didn't insult me every time I make a valid point that contradicts you.

RAF strikes (which I assume are typical) seem to be against weapons which are in use at the time, because either the Peshmerga or Iraqi Army has called in CAS.

In those circumstances I think it reaosnable to assume there are no children playing within a few tens of metres of the target.

you don't need an military career or extensive training to work that out.

As for what war crime would be committed in bombing Raqqa – I thought that you'd know that because military personnel are meant to be taught such things.

The original post suggested trashing the place. Causing indiscriminate massive civilian casualties is, these days, a war crime.

hitting it with the occasional Hellfire isn't.

Whatever plans the Syrians have for Raqqa, it is their city. They may, just may, not like the diea of a foreign power killing thousands of their citizens for giggles.

I( don't know, some people are just unreasonable like that.

Your Nixonite view that 'If America does it, that makes it right' is morally repugnant.

And would the Israelis grant basing rights? And would the Jordanians grant you permission to overfly?

How many nations would you decide to take on?

I agree everyone else seems to be committing human rights abuses.

That kind of being why we're bombing them. If you do the same, why shouldn't people bomb you?