Russia to boost Syria's air defences

[Redcrow]

Tell me again how Hillary Clinton was the "war hawk candidate..."

Because this was her idea

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...e-remove-Assad

"I really believe we could have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."

[Deleted]

It means that Russia will make some money by selling junk.

There is a difference between the DIA and the CIA.

Yep. One letter difference.

[zEmini]

This just makes Russia look weaker. So I guess Russia is pro chemical weapons then.

[zenkai]

Looks like Russia regrets backing the wrong person.

[PACOX]

We all know what this means.

THE COLD WAR IS BACK BABY!

I mean its the diet version but if Donnie is going to see this through and Russia is going to continue to arm Asad we're basically fighting the Korean war where it was US tech vs USSR tech to see which is superior.

Russia is fine with us bombing Asad as long as they get to keep their shit but they aren't going to back down from a chance to actually test their toys vs USA toys in the field.

- - - Updated - - -

Because this was her idea

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...e-remove-Assad

"I really believe we could have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."

The hell? It's as much as her idea as any other Joe Schmo playing couch commander. Don't even try to put blame on her when she has the same amount of power as you and me.

And we know what her plan was. She was going to work out a no fly zone with other countries. Bombing is something you do afterwards to stop no fly violations. Not bomb first and ask questions later The pressure on Syria would've happened weeks ago, we might otherwise even have gotten to this point. .

[Kellhound]

It means that Russia will make some money by selling junk.

Yep. One letter difference.

An entire mindset difference.

[Skroe]

Looks like Russia regrets backing the wrong person.

US Syria policy represents, to a degree, the political consensus in Washington. Some would like to do more (a lot more). Some would like to do less (a lot less). What Obama and Trump have done represents, broadly speaking, the political middle.

Russia has never understood US politics and could never understand them. Even there own citizens who comment here don't understand them. They can't because in their own autocratic regime, they have no frame of reference. In Russia, Putin coaxes and balances the competing agendas of his inner circle to press his own agenda. He decides. In the US, the President is just but one vote.

This is something that the Trumpkins have never understood, and probably still don't understand. When they were saying last year "Hillary's No fly zone in Syria would lead to World War III", I ridiculed it as moronic from many angles, and one of those was the fact that like with defense spending going up, Hillary and Trump would likely have nearly identical Syria policies to Obama, because they represent an ideas that has emerged organically, that the President is only one particpant in.

There is the Senate with it's many power centers, that Trump will never control.
There is the sprawling US Foreign Policy establishment, which is so inter-linked to each other, good luck every fully "de-institutionalizing it". It'll never happen.
There is the Pentagon and the Defense Establishment, which elected officials across really, over a century, since the days of General Sherman, have failed to completely control.
There is the armada of lobbyists for industry and other governments.

Syria policy, like North Korea policy, like European policy broadly represents the workable consensus. If Russia, or the alt-right thinks anything changes with Trump, they really need to pick up a history book. He's not the first "change" President. He's actually the third out of the last four (Clinton and Obama were the other two). Change Presidents always become Establishment Presidents.

[zenkai]

US Syria policy represents, to a degree, the political consensus in Washington. Some would like to do more (a lot more). Some would like to do less (a lot less). What Obama and Trump have done represents, broadly speaking, the political middle.

Russia has never understood US politics and could never understand them. Even there own citizens who comment here don't understand them. They can't because in their own autocratic regime, they have no frame of reference. In Russia, Putin coaxes and balances the competing agendas of his inner circle to press his own agenda. He decides. In the US, the President is just but one vote.

This is something that the Trumpkins have never understood, and probably still don't understand. When they were saying last year "Hillary's No fly zone in Syria would lead to World War III", I ridiculed it as moronic from many angles, and one of those was the fact that like with defense spending going up, Hillary and Trump would likely have nearly identical Syria policies to Obama, because they represent an ideas that has emerged organically, that the President is only one particpant in.

There is the Senate with it's many power centers, that Trump will never control.
There is the sprawling US Foreign Policy establishment, which is so inter-linked to each other, good luck every fully "de-institutionalizing it". It'll never happen.
There is the Pentagon and the Defense Establishment, which elected officials across really, over a century, since the days of General Sherman, have failed to completely control.
There is the armada of lobbyists for industry and other governments.

Syria policy, like North Korea policy, like European policy broadly represents the workable consensus. If Russia, or the alt-right thinks anything changes with Trump, they really need to pick up a history book. He's not the first "change" President. He's actually the third out of the last four (Clinton and Obama were the other two). Change Presidents always become Establishment Presidents.

They only gave you 3 days? must be nice

[Redcrow]

We all know what this means.

THE COLD WAR IS BACK BABY!

I mean its the diet version but if Donnie is going to see this through and Russia is going to continue to arm Asad we're basically fighting the Korean war where it was US tech vs USSR tech to see which is superior.

Russia is fine with us bombing Asad as long as they get to keep their shit but they aren't going to back down from a chance to actually test their toys vs USA toys in the field.

- - - Updated - - -



The hell? It's as much as her idea as any other Joe Schmo playing couch commander. Don't even try to put blame on her when she has the same amount of power as you and me.

And we know what her plan was. She was going to work out a no fly zone with other countries. Bombing is something you do afterwards to stop no fly violations. Not bomb first and ask questions later The pressure on Syria would've happened weeks ago, we might otherwise even have gotten to this point. .

So your saying even though she said "we should do this exact thing" that if she was president she wouldn't have done this exact thing? Or do you seriously believe "she would have had it all worked out by now and there wouldn't have been a chemicals weapon attack to respond to"

[Deleted]

Trump cited the chemical attack as justification for the missile strike on a Syrian air base. But the Kremlin insists Assad’s government wasn’t responsible for the attack, saying civilians in Khan Sheikhoun were exposed to toxic agents from a rebel arsenal that was hit by Syrian warplanes.

“President Putin believes that the U.S. strikes on Syria represent an aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law under a far-fetched pretext,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement. “Washington’s move deals a significant blow to Russia-U.S. relations, which are already in deplorable shape.”

I don't see how you can call the U.S. explanation "far-fetched" and doing so doesn't seem very intellectually honest. Why has their research arrived at such a drastically different conclusion than the U.S. investigation and are having such a hard time convincing people of the validity of their results (and how "far-fetched" is the explanation to this)? What if their research is wrong, why are they so confident in the results? What would happen if they accepted the more popular explanation, would history validate them if they were actually correct?

To me it seems like the relations to Russia are bad because people keep saying they are bad. I think they are awesome.

Peskov said the U.S. gave Russia advance notice about the strike. He added that Moscow believes it makes no sense to maintain the hotline.

Asked if the decision to freeze the information exchange could raise the risk of midair incidents, Peskov said it was the U.S. attack that increased such danger.

This doesn't seem like a necessary conclusion one can draw from this incident and the logic in the last statement is rather strange. You'd think a more professional spokesperson could speak more clearly and give more useful answers in such "strained" times.

[Skroe]

They only gave you 3 days? must be nice

I don't get banned regularly because unlike the Putinistas and Trumpkins, I'm not a nut. I don't have a lot of infraction points.

And also unlike the alt-right crybabies, I don't whine when the people who run the joint put me in the penalty box. Their house, their rules.

[ranzino]

Can you defend a base against 59 ( or whatever the amount is next time) tomahawks incoming in rapid sequence with AA alone ?

[Kellhound]

Can you defend a base against 59 ( or whatever the amount is next time) tomahawks incoming in rapid sequence with AA alone ?

In theory, if the systems worked as well in real life as they do on paper, 17 S-400s would be just enough to shoot them all down with a .9pk (6 misses) and have 3 missiles left.

[Docturphil]

This must be a front. I mean we all know that Trump is under Putin's control, right?

[Deleted]

It was sarin. Just read more carefully about what you talk about.

Also, Assad used Sarin before already. In Ghouta, where he killed 1300 men and woman.

Not really

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-fai...attack/188597/

On the above one its worth reading for the MIT professors, who among other things were "previously advising the Pentagon on missile technology"

http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-conten...n-Syria-CW.pdf

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymou...d-the-rat-line

Last one is a gem

[Thepersona]

I dont want to play devil's advocate, but do we really know that assad used sarin gas (or any other toxin) against civillians/combatants? Or was another faction in the conflict?

[Netherspark]

You understand that there are new factors in place now (namely chemical weapons) that were not in play by the time of the election, right?

Chemical weaposn have been "in play" in Syria for years....

[Deleted]

Last one is a gem

They are all gems. In special considering their sources. RT gems. Sputnik gems.

[Karon]

You mean chemical attack you hardly know about? DoD knows plenty about it.

Then please prove that to us. With credible sources please.

[Skroe]

Can you defend a base against 59 ( or whatever the amount is next time) tomahawks incoming in rapid sequence with AA alone ?

In addition to what Kellhound said, I wrote in the other thread, that typical US approach to shooting down incoming missiles is to launch two interceptors at it. So assuming Russia does the same, for 59 missiles, you'd want 118 interceptors. Each S-400 carries up to 8 missiles. Some carry 6, some carry 4... depend son the range of the missile (larger range = larger missile, smaller range = smaller missile, so they can carry more, to put it simply). But you'd want 15-17 S-400s, each firing 2 missiles. With a very high success rate you'd succeed.

But here's the rub. That's about $1 billion worth of S-400 units. An single S-400 maneuvering unit consists of 8 launchers (plus other vehicles), which can fire 64 missiles. So taking on 59 missiles would require two whole units, or about $1 billion worth of S-400s to intercept $70 million worth of missiles. And there is nothing to stop the US from firing another volley, or using drones, decoys, electronic warfare or other means.


There are not 17 S-400 launchers in all of Syria. There are believed to be 8. Plus another 6 Syrian S-300s (some of which were recently destroyed by Israel) and 8 Russian S-300 units, which can interoperate with S-400. In fact on all of the world, there are only 150 launchers, most of them guarding High Value sites around Moscow and in Kalingrad.

This mostly just undercuts the Russian-fans S-400 fetishism. For the US, our S-400 analog, the Patriot Missile PAC-3, is used for the missiles that get away. The US's "air defense" is air power - either shooting down cruise missiles mid flight with air to air missiles, or destroying their launches ahead of time with a strike. The US uses air defense like Patriot for the ones that get through. This is especially true of Warships, which do the same thing. The best defense against enemy missiles is aircraft going out to attack.

And the numbers can make clear why. The US has over 3500 Tomahawks. How could 150 launchers all armed with 8 missiles ever defend against that? They never could. And that doesn't include all the other types of cruise missiles, powered missiles and glide bombs the US uses. Static defenses are barely a defense at all.