Syrian Crisis Updates Thread

Reports on current military activity
User avatar
jayfeather31
Power poster 3
Power poster 3
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:25 pm
Location: Douglas, WY / Converse County
Contact:

Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:38 pm

JohnStone wrote:France and Britain are considering military force in Syria, got a lot of major players in one small country. Never thought Syria would be ground zero for WW3, but it's starting to look like it.
Hey, Countdown To Looking Glass predicted it would happen in the area this is happening now.
The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one.
~Albert Einstein
Great, let's round up all the useless cats and hope a tree falls on them.
~Jayfeather

User avatar
ArmyATC
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:58 am

Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:38 pm

Prz123 wrote:
Doesn't it start to look like a little bit of cluster-fun? ;)
I can't even imagine what a single mistake or misfire would do there with that many countries involved..
Yep, it looks more like a gathering. It's as if Russia wants to somehow force the issue and now NATO is reacting with actions to say, 'no, we've got this.' Reading actual Russian news, which we know what that is, the public support for ground operations is low because of their memories of Afghanistan.

A lot of downplaying this on the media, and all kinds of propaganda, so I just started to document the actual official announcements so we could some how make some sort of logical discussion. It is early to truly speculate on Russia's intent, but if Israeli news is right, and they have been pretty reliable, should it turn out this new sub is carrying nukes sailing for Damascus, well now that is a signal to me of Russian deterrence.

And to put a nuclear deterrent deployed in such a fashion, has to change the calculus of the West, imo..

These seem to be prepositioning assets to strengthen Putin's negotiating position at the UN meeting this month. But all this activity in that one area could easily cause a miscalculation. I just hope that there is damn good comms between all nuclear powers, something I haven't been able to verify.
"We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace."

Jeane Kirkpatrick

Prz123
.
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:01 pm
Location: Poland

Mon Sep 07, 2015 9:46 pm

ArmyATC wrote:
Prz123 wrote:
Doesn't it start to look like a little bit of cluster-fun? ;)
I can't even imagine what a single mistake or misfire would do there with that many countries involved..
Yep, it looks more like a gathering. It's as if Russia wants to somehow force the issue and now NATO is reacting with actions to say, 'no, we've got this.' Reading actual Russian news, which we know what that is, the public support for ground operations is low because of their memories of Afghanistan.

A lot of downplaying this on the media, and all kinds of propaganda, so I just started to document the actual official announcements so we could some how make some sort of logical discussion. It is early to truly speculate on Russia's intent, but if Israeli news is right, and they have been pretty reliable, should it turn out this new sub is carrying nukes sailing for Damascus, well now that is a signal to me of Russian deterrence.

And to put a nuclear deterrent deployed in such a fashion, has to change the calculus of the West, imo..

These seem to be prepositioning assets to strengthen Putin's negotiating position at the UN meeting this month. But all this activity in that one area could easily cause a miscalculation. I just hope that there is damn good comms between all nuclear powers, something I haven't been able to verify.



Being honest with You there, Polish media done about 1 report on Russian possible involvment in Syria.
I'm monitoring closely this escalating event and from what I can tell for now there are far too many countries involved for this moment.
At some moments it start's to seem like a panic (if that's not-too-big-of-a-word for that) of some major NATO countries/allies.
I mean, Russia supposedly steps into Syria - bam! Suddenly, France wants to get involved into this crap, Great Britain is also rumored to join this mess...
Tell you what, I'm not a fortune teller or a prophet of any kind but from now on I think this event either goes calm quite fast due to diplomacy or soon enough we'll see many other countries stepping in.
Or, god forbid, we'll see some horrific incidents or misfires - then what? Will both parties agree that it was a mistake?

Will they?

What wrong could really happen from that many countries involved? :D
A war?! Don't be silly!.. :)

...Famous last words...

Let's just hope for a deescalation for now. Step by step into peace. Hopefully...

User avatar
ArmyATC
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:58 am

Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:00 pm

Prz123 wrote:
Being honest with You there, Polish media done about 1 report on Russian possible involvment in Syria.
I'm monitoring closely this escalating event and from what I can tell for now there are far too many countries involved for this moment.
At some moments it start's to seem like a panic (if that's not-too-big-of-a-word for that) of some major NATO countries/allies.
I mean, Russia supposedly steps into Syria - bam! Suddenly, France wants to get involved into this crap, Great Britain is also rumored to join this mess...
Tell you what, I'm not a fortune teller or a prophet of any kind but from now on I think this event either goes calm quite fast due to diplomacy or soon enough we'll see many other countries stepping in.
Or, god forbid, we'll see some horrific incidents or misfires - then what? Will both parties agree that it was a mistake?

Will they?

What wrong could really happen from that many countries involved? :D
A war?! Don't be silly!.. :)

...Famous last words...

Let's just hope for a deescalation for now. Step by step into peace. Hopefully...

True.. and we cannot forget there are terrorists and non-state actors that would love to use this chaos to intentionally make it ignite. That's the big concern, and the comms.
"We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace."

Jeane Kirkpatrick

User avatar
JohnStone
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 2587
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:10 pm

Mon Sep 07, 2015 10:25 pm

I think you guys hit the nail on the head. France and Britain suddenly wanting to take part in the battle is like NATO saying, "We're going to back each other up" against Russia involvement. So what does Russia do? Well the only thing it can do, it brings on the sub and says, "Hey NATO, are you forgetting something? We still have nukes, and we're not afraid to use them." which is Russia's primary deterent against NATO since their conventional military likely won't match up.

Look though, I saw on Russian state media, can't remember which one, where they were actually bragging about Russian numbers. I believe they said something like, "Russia can dish out 95,000 troops at a moment's notice" then they go on to say, "How can NATO expect to beat Russia when it can't even match that?" This was actual media printing this.

There was actually a report going around, I'll have to try to find it, that claims that Russia's generals are getting more and more confident that they can actually win a nuclear war. It went on to say that it may not lead to end of life afterall, given the logic that just a few well placed Nukes may force NATO into a surrender. I guess they're using former World War Strategies, where one side bombs a single target, then the other side bombs a target, but with nukes this time....as oppose to a full exchange which is what most of us have always expected. I don't know if it would work this way, and i'm not sure if our launch detection methods can tell the difference between one nuclear launch and 500 launches...so I can't say whether it would trigger a full response or just an isolated one. Of course if they used bombers, this would be a different story. Say they bomb alaska (given its proximity), so we decide to bomb one of Russia's cities, etc. Not sure if it could work like this, but using bombers instead of ICBM's....maybe. But either way, this may be their logic....could be why they keep testing us with bombers. If both sides understood this was the game, just back and forth, both sides may be less willing to perform a full exchange, at least right off the bat...in hopes that one side or the other may surrender...saving both sides from MAD. I'm not saying this can happen, just what the report indicated from Russia's point of view. Remember Sum of All Fears? Something like this...though Russia didn't nuke Baltimore, they got the blame for it...of course this almost lead to a full exchange.

There was an 80's movie where Washington got bombed, then russia called and asked the president to surrender prior to a full exchange. I can't remember the name of it, but most of it involved a bomber with two pilots, a male and female who had a thing for each other. The woman was blinded by a nuclear flash after looking out the cockpit window...can't think of the name offhand.

In a sense, Russia could resort more to Hybrid/terrorist type tactics, where it takes the West time to figure out who did it...like Ukraine. We didn't expect these tactics prior to Crimea's annexation, and it worked out well for Russia. They know we are counting on the traditional world war III scenario, they could use that to their advantage....maybe. Lots of maybes when dealing with Putin.

Either way, this is indeed a cluster f*ck, one in which makes a new world war far more likely than it was last month the month before. We also need to keep in mind in regard to communication, we don't have the same failsafes that we had during the last cold war..which was dragged out long enough for both sides to create a last line of communication. This new cold war has just been going on for less than two years, there are few failsafes, if any at all at this point.

spannerman
New member
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:48 am

Tue Sep 08, 2015 8:32 am

I think the film is called, By dawns early light.

Encyclopath
Regular contributor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:26 am

Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:20 am

ArmyATC wrote:I just hope that there is damn good comms between all nuclear powers, something I haven't been able to verify.
Isnt the Russian sattelite launch detection early warning system still offline?

User avatar
ArmyATC
Power poster 1
Power poster 1
Posts: 1563
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:58 am

Tue Sep 08, 2015 10:47 am

Encyclopath wrote:
Isnt the Russian sattelite launch detection early warning system still offline?
They issued that, then followed it with this:

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2015/1508 ... rning.html

But I wasn't very clear, although you bring up a valid point. I was referring to tactical comms in theater of all these hot spots, mainly Syria now, to ensure the differing nuclear forces command elements are talking in case of a miscalculation or terrorist sabotage.

The big problem I have is would either side believe the other. Maybe once, maybe twice, but we start seeing a pattern, perceived or not, it will challenge these commander's decisions. Through in state or non- state sabotage, and comms could be disrupted leaving the commanders with fail safe type options.

We back 'moderate' rebels that have been infiltrated by jihadis. They back other proxy terror types allied to Iran that are compromised at least in their thinking, but probably infiltrated as well.

The sheer amount and types of arms that have been sent there for YEARS now means no one knows what these types are truly capable of. And the jihadis WANT a global conflagration for religios extremists reasons.

A truly frightening scenerio that I do not think has ever happened before. So even if all sides are talking, the trust factor is low. I just know what the fog of war, heck even some good realistic training, can do. And friendly fire, bad intel, and already we have seen wrong targets hit, all is something that makes this highly dangerous.

It's going to get interesting, I bet.
"We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace."

Jeane Kirkpatrick

Encyclopath
Regular contributor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2015 10:26 am

Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:19 am

ArmyATC wrote:
Encyclopath wrote:
Isnt the Russian sattelite launch detection early warning system still offline?
They issued that, then followed it with this:

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2015/1508 ... rning.html
Oh! I totally missed that at the time. Still, it seems one of the two statements was a lie. But which one?

Missileman
.
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:43 am

Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:12 pm

Bulgaria DENIES use of its airspace for Russian Aircraft.


http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150908/1026732699.html

Post Reply