Looks like we're going into Syria.

The place for anything at all...
User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:14 am

i think that there is calm before the storm in syria somebody will do something that would make things worse than before beside dont wory about one who plays with chemical weapons fear the one whos playing with nuclear weapons
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

-Bhagavad Gita

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:31 am

lovec1990 wrote:i think that there is calm before the storm in syria somebody will do something that would make things worse than before
I always assume that things in that part of the world can get worse.
lovec1990 wrote: beside dont wory about one who plays with chemical weapons fear the one whos playing with nuclear weapons
Two things: Part of the danger of weapons of mass destruction, comes from the personalities involved in using them. For instance, I don't see North Korea as much of a threat, because they have them for a purely deterrent role (well, and as a lever for foreign aid in the form of grain and fuel). Far less, at least than Pakistan, and radically less than Iran. I can easily envision either of those two lunatic asylums actually using them.

Second thing: Department of Defense has (according to rumor) done elaborate studies that find that nuclear weapons are actually less deadly than chemical munitions. It (again, supposedly) depending upon several factors such as weapon yield for nukes, and actual chemical composition for bio-chem, turns out that chemical attacks tend to create more fatalities on average (in simulations) than nukes do, and even with the molecular bonds that radio-isotope Cesium fallout forms with most surfaces, certain persistent nerve agents like Soviet-era "GD" gas actually are harder to de-contaminate and are more toxic to most mammallian biologics as well.

The precise specifics, I suspect are highly classified, but generally either are seriously bad news. "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" getting their hands on a couple pallets of GD gas would be a horrific nightmare.
Uniform Two Six wrote:No, I like Assad just fine.
Darn it. Just thought of a better way to end that one. There's an old saying: "Perfection is the mortal enemy of good enough".

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:47 am

Uniform Two Six wrote:
lovec1990 wrote:i think that there is calm before the storm in syria somebody will do something that would make things worse than before
I always assume that things in that part of the world can get worse.
lovec1990 wrote: beside dont wory about one who plays with chemical weapons fear the one whos playing with nuclear weapons
Two things: Part of the danger of weapons of mass destruction, comes from the personalities involved in using them. For instance, I don't see North Korea as much of a threat, because they have them for a purely deterrent role (well, and as a lever for foreign aid in the form of grain and fuel). Far less, at least than Pakistan, and radically less than Iran. I can easily envision either of those two lunatic asylums actually using them.

Second thing: Department of Defense has (according to rumor) done elaborate studies that find that nuclear weapons are actually less deadly than chemical munitions. It (again, supposedly) depending upon several factors such as weapon yield for nukes, and actual chemical composition for bio-chem, turns out that chemical attacks tend to create more fatalities on average (in simulations) than nukes do, and even with the molecular bonds that radio-isotope Cesium fallout forms with most surfaces, certain persistent nerve agents like Soviet-era "GD" gas actually are harder to de-contaminate and are more toxic to most mammallian biologics as well.

The precise specifics, I suspect are highly classified, but generally either are seriously bad news. "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" getting their hands on a couple pallets of GD gas would be a horrific nightmare.
Uniform Two Six wrote:No, I like Assad just fine.
Darn it. Just thought of a better way to end that one. There's an old saying: "Perfection is the mortal enemy of good enough".
only that radiation stays there longer chemical weapons like sarin are gone fast and did you saw in movies how it looks when nuke detonates?

chemical weapon kills you faster but still isnt as dangerus as nuclear bomb witch couse massive destruction and yes you may surivive the blast but there is radiation witch can couse you too recive cancer and could couse you will have deformed children later.
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

-Bhagavad Gita

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:30 pm

lovec1990 wrote: only that radiation stays there longer chemical weapons like sarin are gone fast and did you saw in movies how it looks when nuke detonates?

chemical weapon kills you faster but still isnt as dangerus as nuclear bomb witch couse massive destruction and yes you may surivive the blast but there is radiation witch can couse you too recive cancer and could couse you will have deformed children later.
First off, the Syrians probably have stuff far worse than mere "garden variety" Sarin. Sarin (to my knowledge -- I am not an expert on chemical munitions) is what is classified as a non-persistent nerve agent. What that means is that it has not been modified chemically to adhere to surfaces particularly well, nor has it been fortified in any way to resist UV degradation. Rumor has it that the Soviets invented some f***ed-up variant of GD gas that not only does all that, but has some chemical component that helps it cross cellular membranes (Like maybe DMSO, or something) and has the ability to chemically break down filter cartridges on gas masks as well. Scary stuff...

Now, a nuclear detonation looks seriously impressive (and is), but there's some interesting tidbits that have been declassified recently. It turns out that most people who are actually killed (or projected to be killed by simulations) by a nuclear detonation are either killed by overpressure or thermal flash -- not primary radiation (fallout is another matter). Basically, unless a particular blast dips under about 20Kt yield (which starts to put it in the range of a tactical nuke, not a strategic one), if you get a fatal dose of radiation, you're statistically already dead from overpressure. Outside of the overpressure kill radius, you are still likely to be killed by the thermal flash -- but this is not particle radiation. That means that if you have a simple piece of cardboard between you and the flash, you're good. Much of this is somewhat counterintuitive, but actually true.

The bottom line is that unless you die from the direct blast effects of a nuke, any further fatalities are preventable (to a degree). Now, protection against thermal flash is another matter, but the long range "preventable" fatalities are primarily the result of fallout. At that point, it (again supposedly) turns out that the effects of exposure of an unprepared civilian populace to persistent chemical weapon material are projected by Department of Defense to be greater than that of radioactive fallout. You mentioned cancer and genetic anomalies in subsequent generations. Those are secondary effects. In order for you to even see any of those things, the subject in question has to first survive the primary effects -- which are supposedly modeled as being significantly more lethal for chemicals than radioactive fallout. For instance, most fallout tends to precipitate in water supplies fairly quickly. Certain chemical munitions, on the other hand, are designed to mix with water and retain much of their lethality at even minute concentrations, so water supplies are radically more vulnerable.

Now, there are a couple of wild cards here. "Preventable" is a wonderful term, and basically means that there are mitigation measures that can be taken against a specific threat. Supposedly, all this assumes that those mitigation measures are not taken, and the civilian population is fully unprepared (emergency supplies are not stockpiled, personal protective equipment is not on hand, medical facilities and first responders are not prepared or equipped properly, etc.). If those measures are taken in advance, then I suspect that much of what you say does have at least some validity. There's not much one can do to protect oneself from the primary blast effects of a strategic nuclear weapon after all (aside from not being within four nautical miles of any primary target on the day of the apocalypse).

All I can say is that NATO in general, and the United States in particular, modeled the heck out of this during the Cold War, and the experts were actually more worried about the chemicals than the nukes.

User avatar
Scott Gardener
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 4731
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:36 pm
Gender: Male
Mood: Excited
Location: Rockwall, Texas (and beyond infinity)
Contact:

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Scott Gardener » Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:51 pm

I fear that too many people watching the news are trying to be armchair tacticians, strongly emotionally espousing their opinions about what to do as if they knew more than a panel of seasoned high-ranking Generals and Admirals with decades of military experience.

That said, I'll chime in anyway.

I have to agree with John Stewart's comparing some of the punditry to seventh grade. We don't have to put up a fight just to look tough in front of Russia. If Russia's disarming Syria's chemical weapons turns out to be legitimate, then we will have avoided armed conflict altogether. As Sun Tzu tells us, the best warrior seeks to win without having to fight. And being called names by a posturing Russian Prime Minister is certainly better than getting caught up in yet another Middle East conflict. I don't know about you, but I'm sick and frakking tired of Middle East conflicts.

And, yes, there is a dictator committing atrocities in Syria, but if we bombed every dictator who committed atrocities, we'd also be at war with North Korea, Myanmar, and maybe a third of the continent of Africa.
Taking a Gestalt approach, since it's the "in" thing...

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:39 pm

Basically -- ditto.
Scott Gardener wrote:I fear that too many people watching the news are trying to be armchair tacticians, strongly emotionally espousing their opinions about what to do as if they knew more than a panel of seasoned high-ranking Generals and Admirals with decades of military experience.
This isn't even really a military thing. Defeating the Syrian military is a fairly straightforward exercise. The real question is what comes next? That's where the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration got wrapped around the axle in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most people in the military don't want to touch this thing with a stick.
Scott Gardener wrote: I have to agree with John Stewart's comparing some of the punditry to seventh grade... And being called names by a posturing Russian Prime Minister is certainly better than getting caught up in yet another Middle East conflict.
Oh, yeah. I'd forgotten about him. Here's a guy who irradiated a commercial flight with radioactive Polonium in order to assassinate one guy. Why does the right wing give a cr@p what he says? :?

User avatar
Terastas
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 5193
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 4:03 pm
Custom Title: Spare Pelican
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Terastas » Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:58 pm

Uniform Two Six wrote:Getting in a snit with the Russians over a few hundred thousand dead Syrians is something that likely makes little sense to them. Thus, I don't see them doing anything more than token gestures even with American involvement.
What about the million-odd refugees that keep pouring over their border?

Turkey might have a bazillion reasons to want to avoid open conflict, but they have just as many reasons to want a quick resolution. I genuinely do think the only reason they are not involved yet is because they'd have no one behind them.
Image

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:21 pm

Terastas wrote: What about the million-odd refugees that keep pouring over their border?
What about them? They're way more worried about the Kurdish population in Syria, and anything that could heighten the prospects of a resurgent Kurdistan. They preferred Saddam Hussein to the semi-independent Kurdish region that they now have on their eastern border (and that they've been intermittently bombing and shelling). My sneaking suspicion is that if they had their way, the Turks would rather have Assad firmly in power and this whole rebellion defeated.
Terastas wrote: Turkey might have a bazillion reasons to want to avoid open conflict, but they have just as many reasons to want a quick resolution. I genuinely do think the only reason they are not involved yet is because they'd have no one behind them.
Also don't forget that the Turks invaded this whole part of the world a hundred years ago, and little love has been lost between the Arabs and Turkey. The Turks are probably also very mindful of just how much of a quagmire this could end up being for them, given how much they are despised. When the U.S. starts talking about military action, the Turks are very well aware that we can always pull out if the going gets tough, but this is on their border and they're basically stuck there.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:32 am

I think we need to use military solution for syria because its getting worse
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

-Bhagavad Gita

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:01 pm

Okay. My next question is: What is the 'military solution'? There's a big difference between having the United States invade someplace (we're apparently quite good at that), and actually accomplishing something like nation-building. You don't have to look very far to see just how badly something like this can go: Right next door is the perfect example in Iraq. The Syrians have all the same sectarian issues that the Iraqis have and worse, as fragile as Iraq is politically, if the U.S. were to go in militarily in Syria, it would risk toppling Iraq as well.

The U.S. has exactly zero credibility after Iraq and Afghanistan (rightly or wrongly), so we will be the only ones who are going to go in.

It'll piss off Russia.

The U.S. public is totally worn out after the last decade and will not support any such action.

The military (or at least the Army and Marines) are worn out. Retention is a disaster. Equipment is wrecked and needs replacing (mostly from wear and tear).

We have a huge budget issue right now. There's no money.

If we go in, we're going to have friction issues with the Sunni militias -- which will piss off the Saudis.

It'll piss off the Turks because they're in NATO, and they'll be blamed for anything and everything that goes wrong, as well as increase the risk of an independent greater Kurdistan, and the whole slew of other issues mentioned above.

If order is to be restored, a civilian government will have to be established -- probably by the United States under some thin veneer of the U.N., but in reality at the point of a gun. Such government as a matter of political reality, probably won't include any of the Syrian Baath Party, so we're going to have to play favorites -- and either put Sunni religious whackos in charge, who will start executing people in the streets, or 'moderate seculars', which will piss off the Sunnis (and the Saudis), and turn Syria into Iraq in the long run.

We'll be stuck there for another decade, and eventually be forced to slink away with tail between legs muttering that that was a really dumb idea in the first place.


If there's going to be a military solution in Syria, China should be the ones to send troops this time.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Thu Jan 16, 2014 8:23 am

it is just me or is assad lesser evil in this war he allowed us to destroy their chemical weapons and is willing to talk but opposition isnt plus they arent united at all
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

-Bhagavad Gita

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:51 am

Uniform Two Six wrote:That's the real tragedy in all of this. If they're really dedicated to ousting Assad, all they have to do is arm the rebels, but they've been dicking around because the rebels are mainly Sunni-Wahabbi whackos, who are easily worse than Assad, and nobody wants to be caught selling Stingers to the mujahaddin... Oh, wait. That was, like, three wars ago...
:roll:
I reiterate: I'm still not sure why we want to get rid of Assad. He's a stabilizing force in that neck of the woods. Yeah, he's an evil f***tard -- but he's a secular evil f***tard.
And...
Uniform Two Six wrote:
Terastas wrote: Even from a pragmatic douchebag's point of view, Assad has no benefits. So now the more pragmatic thing to do would be to cripple his regime so the Syrians can hurry up getting a new a** on his throne.
Again I point to Tehran in 1979. Just because Shah Reza Pahlavi was a total douchebag, doesn't mean that Grand Ayatollah Khomeni was a desirable alternative. The most likely replacement for Assad is going to be a Sunni-Wahabbi equivalent of Khomeni -- and he'll have chemical weapons. No, I like Assad just fine.
Yep. Pretty much preaching to the choir here.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:53 am

you are right
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

-Bhagavad Gita

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:55 am

*sigh*
Yes, I know. Really, it's a burden sometimes...
:D

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:13 pm

Welllllllll... It's been a year since I started this post, and although the U.S. intervention in Syria never materialized (thank God), it's beginning to look like we might be doing airstrikes there shortly if the Obama Administration gets its way (just not against the same group of dirtbags). So, I just thought I'd take a quick trip down Memory Lane:
Uniform Two Six wrote: First off, can anyone please explain why we're doing this? Seriously. This makes no rational sense. I get that we don't like watching the Syrian Army attacking civilians. Really. I get that. But here's what throws me for a loop: Why is siding with the rebels supposed to put a stop to that? The guys they're fighting are the Sunni-Wahabbi religious fruitcakes (as in the same general group Osama came out of). These guys are more likely to attack civilians than the Assad guys. The only difference is that the Army has more and bigger weapons, and if (when) the religious rebels go after the civvies, they're going to be targeting the Alawite minority...
...While we're on that subject, what the heck are we expecting to happen should the rebels win? If anyone thinks the secular (minority, by the way) segment of the rebel forces are going to take over once everything settles down and everything is going to be all peaceful and fine, then they're smoking crack. The religious zealots are going to make a grab for power (which is the sole reason they're fighting, by the way), and it's essentially going to be the Iraq scenario all over again, except it's going to be Sunni-Wahabbi whack-jobs in charge this time instead of Shiite whack-jobs in Iraq...
...Personally, I think Assad is the lesser evil here, because he may be an evil f***tard, but he's a secular evil f***tard, and as such, is really the best prospect for stability in that neck of the woods (as in, the secular technocrats are going to look at him, look at the religious zealot fruitcakes, and go with Assad, regardless of how distasteful they find him).
Ah, the good old days when all we were worried about was the evil Syrian Army.

To all the conservative morons (not that any actually lurk on this board): I told you so.

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Tue Oct 14, 2014 2:00 pm

Uniform Two Six wrote:
Terastas wrote: On the other hand, Turkey's prime minister has already expressed a belief that Syria can't get any worse by Assad's removal. Near as I can guess, the only reason they haven't intervened yet is because Mr. Cold-War-Aint-Over-Yet in Russia is standing by Assad, ergo they want the support of the international community (or at least the U.S.) first.
Truthfully, I think there's a few reasons that the Turks aren't getting any more involved in this mess than they have to. They've got a few internal problems to deal with. First off, they've got the Kurdish separatist movement (a problem that we have greatly exacerbated by our intervention in Iraq, by the way). That causes a draw on their military forces. Then there's the internal political aspect. They've been going through a gradual Islamic revolution over the last two decades that's weakened the old secular political structure dating all the way back to Attaturk. The government doesn't want to get sucked into anything that smacks of a struggle between the Muslim Middle East and the godless West...
Terastas wrote: What about the million-odd refugees that keep pouring over their border?
What about them? They're way more worried about the Kurdish population in Syria, and anything that could heighten the prospects of a resurgent Kurdistan. They preferred Saddam Hussein to the semi-independent Kurdish region that they now have on their eastern border (and that they've been intermittently bombing and shelling)...
Called it. The disturbing part is that this is all so predictable. My next prediction: The Iraqis are going to continue to sing our praises while we're helping them against I.S., and once that little threat has been knocked down somewhat, they're going to decry our "meddling" in their affairs when we start trying to push the Shiites to share power with the Sunnis -- then they'll ask us to leave again, and we'll be right back at square one. This damn thing is the gift that just keeps on giving.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:27 pm

Well americans are scared the bear has awoken and hes pissed at ISIS we have confirmed air and naval units attacking terrorists and unconfirmed small ground forces, but there are just rumors for now that Russia is sending Spetsnaz into Syria and mobilising 150000 troops too send them as well.
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

-Bhagavad Gita

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:39 pm

Well, first off, I don't think Putin is pissed at Daesh at all. This is somewhat belied by the fact that Russian forces have not bothered hitting Daesh targets yet. Most of the attacks thus far appear to be targeted at FSA positions (a minority against other targets including Al Nusra Front). Thus far, the Russian focus appears to be to interdict and harass the rebels most threatening Assad's government positions. By unfortunate happenstance, the FSA, which is basically the only group in this whole toxic morass which is funded and armed by the United States, are the ones in the crosshairs. The rebel groups which are less of an immediate threat, like Daesh who are off in the eastern hinterland and really more of a threat to American-client Iraq than the Syrian Government, are basically being ignored. Now, whether or not the Russians are intending to actually put serious boots on the ground in this is questionable. Their logistical situation is tenuous enough that half a dozen squadrons of tactical aircraft (at least two of which are Su-25 Frogfoot, which are super-easy to maintain in the field) may actually represent the extent of their ability to forward-deploy. Remember that the Russians have always been a land-power and have never really invested in the power-projection by sea mission -- their recent fiasco involved in being forced to purchase Mistral Class amphibious ships from France is indicative of this structural weakness. Moreover, they still haven't resolved the Ukraine situation, and with sanctions beginning to bite, I find it somewhat dubious that Putin really wants to get involved in another Afghanistan overseas.

Here's my take:
1. This is a stopgap measure to try to keep Assad in play just a little bit longer, and to see if maybe he can finally break the will of the various rebels facing him (the refugee crisis is a hopeful sign in his mind probably).

2. This quite nicely diverts domestic attention away from the disaster that Ukraine/Crimea has become for Russia.

3. He wants to saber-rattle some with the United States whom (for some ungodly, paranoid reason) he seems to genuinely believe was secretly behind the Maidan movement (which is all some Byzantine plot to maneuver Ukraine into NATO). The cruise missile strike into Syria today confirms this in my mind. They fired those things from the Caspian Sea, requiring overflight of at least Iran and Iraq from almost a thousand miles away. If that was anything other than a political statement, they would have been fired from the Mediterranean Sea (y'know, a few dozen miles away) instead. No. That was intended to send a message to the United States that they can hit targets in the Americans' sandbox of the last decade whenever they want and there's not a thing the U.S. can do about it since there is no way we can touch their ships in the Caspian. Sabre-rattling Turkey, and more broadly NATO, is probably also a secondary aim.

I think Putin is going to goof around with this for however long he feels it still plays well on TV, and that will be the end of it.

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:02 am

and now China is preparing to assist russia.

USA is scared and just crying and unable too do anything
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

-Bhagavad Gita

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:20 pm

lovec1990 wrote:and now China is preparing to assist russia.
:?
Where did you get that? The PRC has a battalion down in Sudan doing Blue-Helmet work with the UN's UNMISS operation, and that's pretty much it as far as troops-in-theatre go. They've got a small warship sitting in Latakia to evacuate their embassy should that become necessary. The only other stuff they have in the area is a tiny patrol group consisting of exactly one Type 052C destroyer and one Type 054A frigate. Between the two of them, they have a grand total of eight C-602 missiles that might have a land attack capability.

If the PRC is "preparing" to go into Syria, they've got some work to do still.
lovec1990 wrote:USA is scared and just crying and unable too do anything
:? How so? I mean, Turkey has been throwing more of a fit than the U.S., and that's understandable since they had a pair of airspace incursions. If I had some Su-34 Fullbacks poking into my airspace, I'd probably get a little upset too.

As far as the U.S. "unable to do anything" goes, the biggest headache as far as the U.S. Air Force is concerned appears to be airspace traffic-control so there isn't a mid-air collision between NATO and Russian aircraft.

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:04 pm

Wow. Okay, so this is hilarious.

Reuters is reporting that there are a grand total of four Su-34 Fullbacks in Syria at the moment (this is the only type of combat aircraft specifically designed to drop the latest generation of smart-weapons in the Russian arsenal). Also, the SS-N-30 Sizzler cruise missiles fired last month appear to have been a one-shot deal. Apparently none have been fired since. Reuters is reporting that they're hearing noises from their military contacts that NATO thinks this may indicate that Russia has run low of precision guided munitions -- y'know, after like, a month.

Man, that is the bunch that can't shoot straight (possibly literally). :lol:

User avatar
Volkodlak
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 12:05 am
Gender: Male
Mood: Bored
Location: Slovenia

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Volkodlak » Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:01 am

Turkey has shoot down Russian fighter jet and captured one of the two pilots that have ejected, reasons Turkey claims that jet entered their airspace, but Russia has evidence that their jet did not enter Turkeys airspace.

its getting crazy
Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds

-Bhagavad Gita

User avatar
Uniform Two Six
Legendary
Legendary
Posts: 1033
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Hayward, CA

Re: Looks like we're going into Syria.

Post by Uniform Two Six » Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:56 pm

Uniform Two Six wrote: Turkey will NOT allow us to base out of Incirlik. There's no way in hell.
Okay, I got that one wrong. We're bombing out of Incirlik.
Uniform Two Six wrote: Truthfully, I think there's a few reasons that the Turks aren't getting any more involved in this mess than they have to. They've got a few internal problems to deal with. First off, they've got the Kurdish separatist movement (a problem that we have greatly exacerbated by our intervention in Iraq, by the way). That causes a draw on their military forces. Then there's the internal political aspect. They've been going through a gradual Islamic revolution over the last two decades that's weakened the old secular political structure dating all the way back to Attaturk...
So this whole thing in Turkey is super-scary. As goofed up as the whole Islamic shift in Turkey was, I never really thought it would come to this. Turkey has a serious secular core that I thought would generally swing the country gradually back to sanity after Erdogan self-destructed. Unfortunately, it's looking like the seculars in the military have gone off the deep-end. Last word was they're bombing the capital and strafing police with aircraft.

This is nuts.

Post Reply