Breaking news: Putin: Russia will help Syria in case of foreign military assault.

page: 12
58
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   
This is the usefulness of amphibious ships Russia/China has sent.

May be the ships are carrying anti-ship and anti-air batteries. They can land the equipment after the US attack.

Why would Russia supply Syria now when it knows the risk of Israeli attack is high.




posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Russia can always transfer the equipment under the air cover of its ships. Once on Syrian territory, the missile can be fired immediately.

Of course US/ISrael can fire on Russian ships. So let us see and wait.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Yakhont has a range of 300 km but I think version with 500km exists.

How far a US ship would be from Syria coast to fire tomahawks?



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
This is the usefulness of amphibious ships Russia/China has sent.

May be the ships are carrying anti-ship and anti-air batteries. They can land the equipment after the US attack.

Why would Russia supply Syria now when it knows the risk of Israeli attack is high.





I suspect this is what those ships are carrying as well. Modern russian SAM equipment and operators.

They will just sit there until the USA attacks then be deployed to defend Syria from 'further american aggression'.

I do wonder where this is going.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 

You are discounting that the missile can be guided by a ship.
All that needs to be done by a shore battery is to launch.


I am counting the advance thrust midcourse and glide range of the missile. It is 78 to 168 nautical miles depending upon the evasion pattern selected and velocity. Receiving telemetry from a ship does not change this. That gets a Syrian Yakhont missile to about the yellow envelope.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
How far a US ship would be from Syria coast to fire tomahawks?

You just commented as an expert in missile midcourse guidance, on my MEZ chart, and it was shown there. Did you not understand the chart?



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


OK.Get your point. So you are saying that US ships will stay out of Yakhont envelope.

An article on Defense Update speculates that Russian ships are there to remove Syrian chemical warheads. That also seems a viable explanation, as removing chemical stockpile from Syria eliminates a major source of the problem.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GargIndia
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 

OK.Get your point. So you are saying that US ships will stay out of Yakhont envelope.

An article on Defense Update speculates that Russian ships are there to remove Syrian chemical warheads. That also seems a viable explanation, as removing chemical stockpile from Syria eliminates a major source of the problem.


If the Russian ships are there to remove the Chemical Warheads, then the US and Russia are on the same side in the conflict. Which I hope ultimately is indeed the case. Then, the US has no business whatsoever inside Syria and all sides can work with Arab nations seeking to overthrow the secular government and seek a resolution as to why. Although I wish that the Assad regime would relax a little toward the West, I am not a fan of overthrowing secular governments and installing military forced Islamic Theocracies like Iran.

Those old horrid institutions days are done.



posted on Sep, 8 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic
 


Russia can only remove Syrian government's stockpile. There are weapons in the hands of rebels that Russia cannot remove.

So the reality is quite complex.

A situation that no chemicals are used can only come when all actors give up.



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


I agree, what's the point in that when many people are asserting the rebels have stolen some. I bet they would be used in the absence of any similar opposition, maybe it's like small scale MAD?



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by deviant300
 


hopefully enough people will realize that syria is only the opening round of this war and will stall and prevent this disaster from taking place.

once the bombing start, the warmongers will use propaganda to expand this war to the entire middle east.

obama is willing to throw his political party and republicans in favor of this attack under the bus.
imo, if this attack takes place, next year election will primarely revolve around throwing out the warmongers in the congress.

without chemical weapons syria would have no means of protecting damascus from being bombed to the stone age by israel and it's chief bitch, the usa.

how will russia help protect syria from these type of weapons of mass destruction?

and the warmongers will still be looking for a middle east war, lets hope the russians are good at playing chess.they face idiots determined to set back human civilization.

that leaves putin as the best hope for a sane outcome in this man made crisis.

chemical weapons have nothing to do with the war saudi arabia and israel want.

the usa is their main bitch doing the dirty work, as i see it.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Mustard2243
 


There are plenty of chemical warheads in the middle-east. Many actors have chemical weapons.

It is just a ruse to attack Syria.

It remains to be seen what Russia will do. Putin has taken a stand, which needs significant amount of force to support. Russia can hardly do this kind of thing without China giving it a hand. So we are looking at early days of polarization of the world that can lead to a world war.





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join