Nuclear Armed Russian Sub Headed for Syria

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Yes, but placing subs near Syria would be a visual aid...that is IF the report is true. I don't think it has been confirmed yet.

Huh?

What does "visual aid" mean in the context of a missile sub - you think het USA has forgotten they exist??

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Yes, but placing subs near Syria would be a visual aid...that is IF the report is true. I don't think it has been confirmed yet.

If Russia wanted to project power visually, they would send a battleship or carrier group. Those are designed to fight and look imposing. Subs are pure stealth vehicles. They are crappy head to head combatants. The idea with a sub is to hit and run before your enemy even has a chance to react.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You and I might not be able to see them, but NATO might. It depends on whether or not Russia chooses to to go stealth. Are they going covert or overt? Is the report even true? A lot of IF's, but I'm still watching September 17th. ISIS isn't going to go away on its own and Russia won't stand by and watch the US fund/supply ISIS...oops, I meant the "Syrian Rebels"... forever. At some point the flood gates are going to break open.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

IF it's there, of course it's going to be stealthy. If not it'll have every SSN in the region hunting it, and probably following it. If it were to try to launch something it would be hit before the missile left the tube.

There is no reason to put it anywhere near Syria if it's there as a deterrent. There are plenty of ways to get a point across. You don't think those aircraft that no one could identify over the US recently were accidentally seen do you? The people that were meant to see them got the message without them even leaving US airspace.

a reply to: ketsuko

Now if only Russia had a battleship or carrier....

Sending a sub to Syria means nothing considering you cant hold territory with a sub.. Nor can you hold it with air units. This is a last ditch effort on the part of Putin to keep Assad in power, which in the end is a losing battle.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
You don't think those aircraft that no one could identify over the US recently were accidentally seen do you?

sorry dude, could you elaborate? just curious what this was.. when etc?

YA know....russia can run syria better than assad i am sure. MAke it a mini USSR in th emiddle east. crush all opposistion and institute a secret police. Berlin wall mark 2 to surround it and air defenses to control the airspace. They already hve a sea base and can commandeer the airport to change i t into a Russian air base.

Does it matter? There not going to nuke anyone. They are only making a statement...even though that statement is pointless.

originally posted by: Wookiep
U.S. asks Greece to deny Russian flights to Syria

So the U.S. is now asking Greece to close it's airspace to Russia..I see that as an escalation.

I'm surprised we aren't seeing more of this talked about on ATS, what with all the activity in Syria, thousands of refugees flowing into Europe every day (many possibly ISIS??) the ongoing situation in Ukraine, Russian/Chinese wargames, Chinese war ships off the coast of Alaska, still missing NK subs, the whole NK/SK situation, the world economy going down the drain, especially China's etc etc etc.

There just seems to be chaos everywhere and it continually seems to be escalating into something MAJOR. I do feel it strange that the media here in the U.S. is talking very little about all this. Even ATS has gone quieter than usual. Que the Twilight Zone music!

Thanks for sharing.
Not being talked about because if it was Russia asking Greece to not allow the US to do the same, it would be a different story as to attention on the topic.

originally posted by: Ancient Champion
Does it matter? There not going to nuke anyone. They are only making a statement...even though that statement is pointless.

Unfortunately, matters if there needs to be some cannon fodder to protect interests in the area from Russia.

a reply to: dreamingawake

I think the reason its not being discussed, and unless something changed, Greece denied the request the same day it was made.

a reply to: JonStone

Nuclear Armed Russian Sub Headed for Syria, yes it going to join all the US Nuclear Armed subs, why?

Perhaps its to support the Russian attempt to help Syria get rid of ISIS seeing how the US and slave states, Brittan and Australia have demosntrated its incapable of defeating a 20,000 strong rag tag army, in the last 12 months.

a reply to: JonStone

www.kyivpost.com...

Moscow's scrabled it's border troops with the Ukraine

All this Ukraine and Syria proxy war is looking more like an actual eastern front right now.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Two aircraft similar to B-2s, but aren't were seen flying over Amarillo and Wichita in the last year. At least one appears to be a prototype of the new bomber that's in development.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Zaphod58

You and I might not be able to see them, but NATO might. It depends on whether or not Russia chooses to to go stealth. Are they going covert or overt? Is the report even true? A lot of IF's, but I'm still watching September 17th. ISIS isn't going to go away on its own and Russia won't stand by and watch the US fund/supply ISIS...oops, I meant the "Syrian Rebels"... forever. At some point the flood gates are going to break open.

ROFLMAO!!!

Obviously you don't know much about subs. If you can localize them they are surprisingly easy to kill. The hard part is localizing them. You don't put boomers in the Med. Maybe a SSGN if they have any operational, but not a boomer.

All this hype about a sub, just goes to show how weak Russia is in power projection. It show that they cannot deploy a Surface Action Group to Syria and support it. That's it, plain and simple.

Israeli sources claiming Russia is going to get involved in Syria so the conflict escalates. Why this doesn't surprise me at all and why we have no other sources (not even NATO ones)?

Apart the obvious fact that Russia is an official ally of Assad and is probably the only foreign country that should have militaries in there.

a reply to: Mastronaut

In a development that caught U.S. intelligence by surprise, Russia has set up an air traffic control tower and modular housing units for hundreds of personnel at an airfield near Syria's Mediterranean port of Latikia.

At the same time, Russia has requested the necessary over-flight rights to fly military cargo aircraft into the airfield.

www.cbsnews.com...

Russia is getting involved, the question is to what extent. Bulgaria denied cargo overflights because they had concerns that the cargo wasn't just humanitarian aid.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Something that never happened before, right?
However, from the same article

However, other analysts caution Russia could simply be gearing up for a humanitarian relief operation for the tens of thousands of Syrian civilians forced by the fighting to flee their homes.

Do you know what was the CBS source? Seems something like this, "anonymous officials".

And never forget Obama basically reathorized the use of propaganda less than 2 years ago. And talking about propaganda on the other side, this is pravda.ru article.

I honestly hope Russia gets involved in Syria, since the other players there don't seem to want to end the conflict, they are just trying to change Assad regime to a favorable one (ie one that approves the Quatari pipeline).
However current moves seem just to be protective of Assad forces, so maybe they have intelligence info that say it's going to escalate/topple quickly.

a reply to: Mastronaut

m.novinite.com...

And that was more anonymous sources and propaganda, right?

Like I said, the only question is the extent. It may only be humanitarian, it may go beyond that. It may start humanitarian and expand later.

But I have little faith they can stop any conflict any better than anyone else. They don't have the best track record with asymmetrical warfare.

a reply to: Zaphod58

mmm? Intelligence sources from Bulgaria, yes they are stinky, but they didn't claim Russia is getting involved in Syria, they said they had reasons to believe the cargo was suspect. Wheter this was a political decision or not it's up to them. Vastly different from the continuous bashing I'm seeing in the western media about everything regarding Russia, China and Iran with dubious sources and often wild reasoning, always avoiding the interests behind (gas pipes etc).

What surprises me is that this is nothing new, but they are making it as if it's only happening recently. Like syrian refugees, why are they leaving only now after 4 years of turmoil and progressive destruction? Maybe the airstrikes are destroying more of their houses than ISIS or the civil war?

So the key question would be WHY now? The extent is dependent on the reasons why Russia would be there. We know a few (alliance with Assad, interests in not having quatar pipes competition), but we don't know what happened that triggered the alleged increase in participation.

I do not think they can stop the conflict, because the conflict is not what is being presented: jihadists killing for money and religion. If you buy that explaination I'm not gonna discuss anymore because frankly is like trying to convince someone that god doesn't exists.

What I do think however is that being the only legitimate military presence there (given the official allegiance) they can expose a bit more of the ISIS-supporting nations because best propaganda is about using real documented infos against the enemy.

Also consider this, russian's media abroad use english and target an audience of slightly better informed people, so they are far less concerned of exposing some facts or presenting a reasonable view (cause they have a different language for internal news) than propaganda media in the west, where they target the least informed with scaremongering.

So IF Russia is increasing the extend of their presence in Syria it should be a positive thing and an opportunity to work together and reduce tensions in both the ME and eastern EU. If this is instead a concern I "wonder" what's the real intention beside wagin war to ISIS /sarc.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'd say it has more to do with trying to protect their own base in Syria than with keeping Assad in power. Obviously, it would be best to keep Assad in power, but the threat of a nuclear missile out of the blue if you eff with that Russian military base is likely what the real message is. Whatever else ISIS has or can do, I don't think they yet have any naval capacity. And a sub could vaporize them before they could move out of the way ... unlike with concentrated airstrikes.