Reporting from just outside DC on the eve of WWIII

a reply to: namehere

We might outnumder their ships in the Med. But we cant compete with their missile capasity to take out our assets on the sea. Russia can target our assets at sea with missiles stationed in Syria and in russia.

Russian EW systems out match ours. That is not good for our fleet which Are bunshed up in a very small space.

Russian missiles are way faster then ours. Just that complicates things in a small space.

It is not going to be cool to be a US sailor if a shoot out starts.

a reply to: spy66


Still waiting for your sources?

I bet zaphod, who actually knows that he’s taking about would challenge your accusations

You can make all sorts of claims....

Sources or it’s just dribble

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Russian antiship missiles aren't going to be easy to stop, but they're not a guarantee to get through either. The reality is somewhere in the middle. SeaRAM has proven pretty successful at stopping targets up to at least Mach 2.5, and if they have the SM-2 Block III, or SM-6 they'll be even more capable.

But, Russian EW systems have made great leaps in recent years. They're not quite up to par with us, but that's almost totally because we use faster processors in our systems. There's evidence that some Russian systems are starting to use the same type of processors, which is bad news unless our EW development gets off its ass in a hurry.

Having multiple ships in a small area is also a mixed bag. It's a smaller target area, allowing for more missiles, but it overlaps the defenses, making them more effective.

Bottom line IMO, we'll get hurt, but it's not going to be the cake walk claimed, and we won't get hurt as bad as claimed. Any Russian ships that get fired on will know they've been kissed as well. It will come down to computers, crew, and training in the end.

a reply to: olddognewtricks

Just don't push the button when Russia bombs US troops invading their territory. They deserve it. Bad soldiers are not worth fighting with since the time of civil wars and revolutionary eras.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: namehere

We might outnumder their ships in the Med. But we cant compete with their missile capasity to take out our assets on the sea. Russia can target our assets at sea with missiles stationed in Syria and in russia.

Russian EW systems out match ours. That is not good for our fleet which Are bunshed up in a very small space.

Russian missiles are way faster then ours. Just that complicates things in a small space.

It is not going to be cool to be a US sailor if a shoot out starts.

Thats what wild weasel missions flew by f-22s are for. can drop seeking munitions with passive sensors outside s-400 range to smash anti ship launchers in a full on engagement,but zaphod has it right.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

This wont be a ship against ship confrontation.

From our side we would have to fight of SU-34s, 24s and helicopters armed with Kh35 antiship missiles, land based antiship missiles like: K 300P bastion and P-800 Oniks which russia have set up on land inside Syria... These are mobile unit's and not easy to track and target.

Russia probably wont use their fleet to target our fleet but use their fleet to target our missiles and cruise Missiles... The russian fleet have a massive amount of S300 and other sea to air assets.

This is just my two cents...

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Sorry doble poste🤔

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

This wont be a ship against ship confrontation.

From our side we would have to fight of SU-34s, 24s and helicopters armed with Kh35 antiship missiles, land based antiship missiles like: K 300P bastion and P-800 Oniks which russia have set up on land inside Syria... These are mobile unit's and not easy to track and target.

Russia probably wont use their fleet to target our fleet but use their fleet to target our missiles and cruise Missiles... The russian fleet have a massive amount of S300 and other sea to air assets.

This is just my two cents...

Well Dont forget ISrael jumping in as well. This wont just be the US in a battle. It will kick off WW3 if this goes down. NATo would come to the defense too.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Civilian airlines have begun rerouting their flights to avoid Syrian airspace after an EASA advisory.

So what do you yhink of all this Xcathdral? Do you think all this is justified?

To be honest I am not sure what to think.

Russia and Syria started out denying this ever occurred.
China steps in and says the west needs to hear Syria's side of the story before we act.
Russia stops a UN resolution calling for an investigation because they wanted it limited in that the investigation could not determine blame. Russia wanted the investigation and the UNSC to assign blame.
Russias position was odd because they claimed no attack ever occurred.
Russia then says that another group used chemical weapons and the Syrian government was being framed for it.

Evidence provided by France -
Chlorine gas attack
Syrian government to blame because the chlorine barrels were dropped from Syrian government helicopters.
Blood samples taken from some of the victim shows positive signs of Chlorine gas reactions.

To me Russias constantly shifting position tells me an attack occurred and the Syrian government is most likely the suspect.

Don't you think this is a bit dubious how this has played out?

The meddling of the usa elections from Russia (No evidence)

The very dodgy attack in the UK. With no evidence that it was the Russians? And also the fact that no one has seen the two people who were poisoned.

And now Assaad using a chemical weapon when he had no reason to do so.

And let's not forget that Assad said no to a pipeline from Qatar through Syria into Europe.

Does that not raise eye brows for you?

a reply to: yuppa

Yes, Israel are starting to show their face as well. Russia warned them last week.

Israel is powerfull military but it can be very quicly stopped. By putting their airfields out of use. This is not a big problem for Russia to do.

When it comes to NATOs involvment we have the issue with Ukrain where russia have massed a lage force. Russia also established a new wing of SU30 and 35s in that region.

Russia have also stationed a large number short to medium range balistic missiles along our eastern EU boarder. This means that NATO would have to move assets now to be able to be prepared for a conflict that could happen any time...

Germany and Holland have passed... They will not take part in a US respons.

To make things short. NATO are not prepared to step up to a imminet conflict that could happen in the Meds. It would take weeks to set up a force that would be capable of retaliating to the forces russia have set up on our EU boarder and in the Meds.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Of course it raises eyebrows...

With that said Russia has done stuff like this in the past which makes it difficult to just ignore the info.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Jay-morris

Of course it raises eyebrows...

With that said Russia has done stuff like this in the past which makes it difficult to just ignore the info.

But the West wanted Qatar to run a pipeline through Lybia into the West, but Assad said no. It should raise more than just an eyebrow in my opinion.

They have been hell bent on blaming Russia for everything, and Assad using another chemical weapon, just does not make sense!

We have seen what the west is capable of, just look at Iraq and libya.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: yuppa

Israel is powerfull military but it can be very quicly stopped. By putting their airfields out of use. This is not a big problem for Russia to do.

uhuh
The IAF operates from a dozen airbases protected by the the most sophisticated air defense network in the region. Plus many if not most Israeli aircraft shelters are hardened against missile attacks and the IAF has been activley preapring for this eventuality in a war with Hezbollah and/or Iran.
Frankly i dont see how Russia would be able to significantly degenerate the sortie generation rate of the IAF in an all out war. Throwing some Cruise Missiles or ballistics at them wont cut it.
But i dont see why Israel woudlnt sit out an US-Russian confronation anyway.

Silently, perhaps even prudently, China remains a large shadow in the background. China is an ally to Russia through shared interests, and through China's claim to certain islands. If China wants support for its intentions for those islands, it will need Russia as a potential military ally. This is something to bear in mind.

China needs Russia in place, just as it needs a non-westernised North Korea in place. Both are potential military allies, both are buffers against western globalism. China cherry-picks trade with whomever for their interest, so one cannot look at the trade deals one's country has with China and assume that China will not step in to help an ally.

The thoughts have been raised by myself and other posters. Thoughts reasonable and logical regarding the chemical attacks. Assad forces were negotiating a surrender with rebel forces as the rebel forces have been overturned and were losing the war in Syria...Assad was about to have his day and survive. Do you really think he would jeopardise this with chemical attacks on a small conclave in rebel-held Douma, a rebel contingent that controls access to a chemical weapons facility. Is it too far retched to think that rogue elements within the rebel stronghold, not wanting to surrender to Syrian forces thinking they will be killed, would seek to draw western forces into the conflict by false flagging a chemical attack and hopefully drive Syrian forces away from them? I think not.

Is it also too far fetched to think that western forces (ultimately wanting to have their pipeline built through Syria) would jump at the chance of using such a false flag chemical attack as a pretext to participate in a conflict in which they cannot do so elsewise, without directly engaging Russian forces, and potentially escalating the conflict to a brief nuclear global theatre? I think not.

Is Trump really that stupid? Is he really willing to risk the lives of American children for the sake of a few Syrian children already caught up in an awful conflict? Let us not forget that Trump stated a few weeks ago that he was ready to pull American forces out of Syria. Then, somewhat coincidently, an atrocity occurs to change his mind. How timely is that for the rebels?

A surrender to Syrian forces might have brought about a respite from the conflict for all parties, if not peace altogether, but obviously, someone other than Assad or Russia, does not want this, they want to widen the theatre to potential global proportions, because if they are going to die, they want to take us all with them.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Just imagine the situation with Hillary in the oval. The US would already be at war with Russia at this point.
Trump - stupid tweets aside - is the least to blame for this situation IMO. I actually think he tries not to get involved further and get away with symbolical strikes if neccessary. But he's getting pushed hard.

False flag by rebels or not - we really cant rule out either party at this point and we never will - its quite obious that they are rather shadowy forces at work pushing the US and the international community at large to intervene in Syria.
Ask yourself why France of all countries is spearheading this effort and is more enthusiastic about military action than most in the current US administration. What interests does France have in Syria? Little to none. And its not like they dont have enough on their plate as is, with Lybia and keeping an eye on half of Africa.
But of course Macron is what you would call an Internationalist, right up Hillarys ally. He plays that tune regardless of the interest of France and thats the real worrying aspect in all of this, because it shows you how much power these guys have.

And generally, take a sept back and look at the stupidity of all of this. Intervening in a civil war that has already seen casulaties in the hundreds of thousands and risking a direct military confrontation with a nuclear superpower, because some godforsaken Suburb allegedly got hid by some sort of chemical attack which claimed a handfull of casulties - who in their right mind thinks this makes any difference at all anymore? There has been death and destruction in Syria for 7 years now, but some low level chemical attack makes all the difference?
Seriously, you couldnt make this # up if you tried.

a reply to: mightmight

They will make up anything to get involved.

Both sides have evidence that the other side did it.
But non of them will show anything....
It have become a game of words and accusations.

I dont know why we would say that we have evidence. It wont mean much unless you provide🤔

a reply to: spy66


Now its getting serious, Canada Netherlands and Germany will not , be part of a strike on Syria. Probably a few more have serious problems with the strike as well. But I have noticed that google has upped its censorship, and the main reporters on this situation have disappeared from the internet. Is this because all the blog comments , back Russia, Jeremy Corban was jeered in the house of Commons when he asked for proof, that's about the state of free speech at the moment. I have never seen such a blatant attack on free speech. It seems we might get force fed this war whether we like it or not.
We might not know the unseen hand that guides us, but we are certainly seeing its presence.

mightmight:

Ask yourself why France of all countries is spearheading this effort and is more enthusiastic about military action than most in the current US administration.

Macron, acting on behalf of France is seemingly seeking to tone down the rhetoric being used by all parties as they fling accusations at each other.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5612901/Is-Macron-backing-out-of-Syria-air-strikes.html

To me, this is a signal, that both Trump and May might be seeking to buy time in order to withdraw from their publicised war statements and try to save face, using Macron as the go-between. I think it is possible that we might well be seeing the start of an easing of tensions, and that we might see a more urgent push for dialogue. Of course, everything is up in the air, everything is in flux, so things could change for better or worse.

Russian belligerence to publicly stand defiant might well, in this instance, staved of war outside of Syria. I think it can also be stated that due to her behaviour in recent times, Theresa May has committed political suicide, and condemned the Tory party to election slaughter...nothing will save them now.

a reply to: elysiumfire


Their cant be any meaningful dialogue , because the Western leaders have been complicit in demonizing Russia, I doubt whether Putin will have anything to do with any western politician that's been demonizing Russia, simply because any talks would not be in good faith . They have forced Russia to have massive expensive drills and have told its people to prepare for War, at the same time NATO troops are sitting on its border.

anonentity:

Their cant be any meaningful dialogue...

Meaningful dialogue has already occurred between Macron of France and Putin. Did you not copy and paste the link I provided? The West and Russia, cannot afford to go to war with each other. The plan to drive back Syrian forces on the pretext of a humanitarian retaliatory missile bombardment has backfired, because Russia has threatened retaliation if any of her service personnel are harmed. War with Russia is to high a price to pay in order to drive back Syrian forces away from western-backed rebels.

It was a belligerent attempt to try to force the issue, but it failed, and now Trump and May have to try to save political face with their electorates.