Poll: Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack

Would you support a military strike on Syria without a UN Security Council resolution?

  • Total voters
    828
  • Poll closed .
Defense Secretary: Russia Gave Syria Chemical Weapons

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/hagel-russia-gave-syria-chemical-weapons

So I guess we should also do a "limited" strike on Russia as well, since no way should we allow russkies to supply dictators chemical weapons that killed 100k kids.

This limited strike should put off Russia from selling chemical weapons to other countries.
 
the us has been warned, this is one step too far. Obama back tracking saying 'he didn't draw the red line, the world did' is a descent into parody.

My assesment is that if amerika goes ahead with this it will be the final straw and the start of a global revolution.

I would also like to know more from China, when the j-15 is cleared war ready there will be no one to match them in terms of sheer production should china choose to go down that path...
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Yes they could, but generally they would need planes between the US missile ships and Syria which I don't believe they have at the moment

*EDIT*

Derp, I completely forgot while mentally focusing on Russia, Syria have modern variants of the MiG 25 which have radar capable of engaging tomahawks and missiles capable of destroying them. The question at this point though would be if Syria has the ability to maintain interceptor patrols 24/7.
Click to expand...

Really, only heard or read about mig 25 in the reconnaissance/interceptor role with limited air to ground capablilities. I would have thought that the modern sam's that they have been getting in the last few years would stand a better chance of taking down a cruise missle.
 
Lazder said:
The question is, do the Russians have the balls to go that far as to shooting down US tomahawks?

They certainly do have the ability to do so.
Click to expand...

No, would be the short answer to that. There's a world of difference between protecting an ally from a punitive strike and actually starting a war on their behalf. Realistically Russia can keep the proxy thing going and try and supply more weapons to replace those bombed, but actually shooting down american missiles? Whole different kettle of fish.
 
Devlish said:
No, would be the short answer to that. There's a world of difference between protecting an ally from a punitive strike and actually starting a war on their behalf. Realistically Russia can keep the proxy thing going and try and supply more weapons to replace those bombed, but actually shooting down american missiles? Whole different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong.
 
oulton said:
I think you are wrong.
Click to expand...

That is your right. However on the left we have two destroyers and two missile cruiser (and an ASW ship), and on the right we have five destroyers and two carrier groups in spitting distance, not to mention the french missile cruiser and assorted subs. It would basically be suicide.

elmuzzy66. said:
The russians can always say that they were protecting their naval base in syria.
Click to expand...

possibly, but that's one of those things that happens after the battle, and would probably be followed by 'when they hit an F15 and were sunk before everyone calmed down.'
 
Last edited:
Devlish said:
No, would be the short answer to that. There's a world of difference between protecting an ally from a punitive strike and actually starting a war on their behalf. Realistically Russia can keep the proxy thing going and try and supply more weapons to replace those bombed, but actually shooting down american missiles? Whole different kettle of fish.
Click to expand...

This this coming from you, I might as well ignore this :D
 
Devlish said:
That is your right. However on the left we have two destroyers and two missile cruiser (and an ASW ship), and on the right we have five destroyers and two carrier groups in spitting distance, not to mention the french missile cruiser and assorted subs. It would basically be suicide.
Click to expand...

So you saying that if Russians shoot down American tomahawks, Americans will open fire on Russian ships?? :D:D:D:D Really??? REALLY???

I do agree with the suicide statement, it would take 10 minutes for Russian nuclear weapons to shower whole europe and USA.
 
Devlish said:
Great, were on the same wavelength.
Click to expand...

Sorry, your last statement implying that US ships would open fire on Russians if they were to shoot down tomahawks makes me laugh....

Deluded beyond belief.

Bottom line, if US ship sinks Russians could blame Assad... If a Russian ship sinks there is no one to blame apart from NATO... I would suggest Americans to pray that nothing happens with Russian ships because otherwise it would be game over for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Lazder said:
Sorry, your last statement implying that US ships would open fire on Russians if they were to shoot down tomahawks makes me laugh....

Deluded beyond belief.
Click to expand...

Yeah the russians can shoot down american assets and they wont mind at all. I'm not really interested in getting into the same old silliness with you, lets stick to ignoring each other.
 
Devlish said:
Yeah the russians can shoot down american assets and they wont mind at all. I'm not really interested in getting into the same old silliness with you, lets stick to ignoring each other.
Click to expand...

Russians can shoot down tomahawks and say that they were protecting their base in Syria??

You make me laugh, do you seriously believe in your little deluded mind that if Russians knock out tomahawks USA would dare to open fire on Russian ships??

I mean most that they could do is to have electronic warfare but no way will Americans open fire on Russian ships... Cmon thats world war 3 seconds away especially some of those ships might be carrying nuclear ballistic missiles...

And do you really think that they will risk "electronic warfare" and cut out Russian ships/subs from main base communication and decide that WW3 started and decide to launch few nuclear missiles?? This already nearly happened some time ago, when Soviet Sub was cut out from command and shelled by US destroyer only 1 vote swayed decision not to unleash Armageddon.

Seriously?
 
Last edited:
Devlish said:
Yeah the russians can shoot down american assets and they wont mind at all. I'm not really interested in getting into the same old silliness with you, lets stick to ignoring each other.
Click to expand...

I'll be ignoring your posts from now on also, what utter stupidity.
 
ubersonic said:
That one ship is capable of downing 64 tomahawks and also has extensive anti air, anti ship and anti submarine offense/defense, would be funny if they got it there then decided as it was old they were selling it to Syria ^^ (Slava class was the precursor to the Kirov class).
Click to expand...

at what range?

I mean its not like they're going to aim them at the ship... and if they were concerned about that possibility then they're going to do their best to make it as difficult as possible... I'd be pretty skeptical about its capability in reality - patriot missiles were supposedly bringing down scuds in GW1... in reality they didn't exactly do a great job of it and had Saddam been silly enough to load some up with nerve agent I don't think the USA would have been able to stop a pretty nasty attack on Israel...

Maybe the Russians, if they decided to, could shoot down *some* - I really doubt that one ship actually would bring down the theoretical 64 in reality though....
 
Devlish said:
That is your right. However on the left we have two destroyers and two missile cruiser (and an ASW ship), and on the right we have five destroyers and two carrier groups in spitting distance, not to mention the french missile cruiser and assorted subs. It would basically be suicide.



possibly, but that's one of those things that happens after the battle, and would probably be followed by 'when they hit an F15 and were sunk before everyone calmed down.'
Click to expand...

An f-15 wouldn't be used in a strike as the weapons it uses would make them get too close to the syrian air defences. Remember that its gonig to be a limited attack. They aren't going to take out all the aa sites making it safe for the use of f-15e.
 
dowie said:
at what range?

I mean its not like they're going to aim them at the ship... and if they were concerned about that possibility then they're going to do their best to make it as difficult as possible... I'd be pretty skeptical about its capability in reality - patriot missiles were supposedly bringing down scuds in GW1... in reality they didn't exactly do a great job of it and had Saddam been silly enough to load some up with nerve agent I don't think the USA would have been able to stop a pretty nasty attack on Israel...

Maybe the Russians, if they decided to, could shoot down *some* - I really doubt that one ship actually would bring down the theoretical 64 in reality though....
Click to expand...

nah, there is never 100% interception in any system, there is probably something like 80% success shoot down...

The thing is, as I mentioned earlier... You dont need S300/S400 to shoot down those tomahawks... Much simpler system of which syria has plenty can do the job as long as tomahawk is flying in about 20km range.
 
dowie said:
at what range?

I mean its not like they're going to aim them at the ship... and if they were concerned about that possibility then they're going to do their best to make it as difficult as possible... I'd be pretty skeptical about its capability in reality - patriot missiles were supposedly bringing down scuds in GW1... in reality they didn't exactly do a great job of it and had Saddam been silly enough to load some up with nerve agent I don't think the USA would have been able to stop a pretty nasty attack on Israel...

Maybe the Russians, if they decided to, could shoot down *some* - I really doubt that one ship actually would bring down the theoretical 64 in reality though....
Click to expand...

Id have to agree, I can see cruisers being 'good' at point defense or protecting a target nearby but trying to intercept multiple missiles passing very low hundreds of miles to either side of you - I just cant see it happening.

elmuzzy66. said:
An f-15 wouldn't be used in a strike as the weapons it uses would make them get too close to the syrian air defences. Remember that its gonig to be a limited attack. They aren't going to take out all the aa sites making it safe for the use of f-15e.
Click to expand...

You dont think there will be some kind of wild weasel missions from turkey? I suppose risking american pilots would be a no go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom