Russia arms Syria with powerful ballistic missiles: U.S. and Russia face off near Syrian border

reply to post by maloy


Oh, I know it would be at best a mission kill, but it would still do a lot of damage, and kill a lot of the crew if it were to hit. It wouldn't be the best weapon for the job, but I can see it hitting something like a carrier, just because of her size.

Regardless, Russia has been trying to stay out of this, so why would they escalate the situation like this? This would be a pretty big escalation in the area too. Patriot hasn't helped, but at least those are for a defensive role, not an offensive one like this would be.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Patriot hasn't helped, but at least those are for a defensive role, not an offensive one like this would be.

That is a matter of perspective. From the Russian/Syrian perspective it provides Turkey (NATO) a huge tactical advantage and is an offensive system. Turkey could attack Syria with little fear of retaliation, they could move in and then NATO is now in control of Syria.

These Russian missiles can change all of that.

IF it is true.

Originally posted by Son of Will
Because military posturing is the most direct way to send a signal or influence a situation, short of an actual engagement.

Military posturing assumes that the posture projects some type of a realistic threat, with realitic military tactics in mind. What threat and to whom would a few Iskander launchers in Syria's possesion project? They certainly wouldn't threaten the majority of Israel's or Turkey's military capability. Without advanced air superiority cover and anti-air defense, the Iskander is as easy of a target as a tractor trailer on a parking lot for the superior air-power of Turkey/Israel.

If Russia wanted Assad to serve the role of "military posturing", they would give him S-300 anti-air system, Pantzir anti-air batteries, Uragan rocket launcher systems, and anti-ship missile batteries instead. All of those would serve that role far better, and would be far more realistic.

Like I said, giving conventional Iskanders to Assad is no more military posturing than giving him a baseball bat and some fly swatters.

Originally posted by Son of Will
If this report is true, which is apparently still up in the air, it would be a message to the West that Russia is willing to defend Syria, at least as far as supplying them with weapons.

it can supply them with many other weapons (and it might be doing that), but Iskander is not one of them. Supply Assad with an Iskander would only send one type of a message to the West:

"Free target practice against an undefended state-of-the-art theater-ballistic missile system, which Russia just shelled out $100 million for".


Russia might just as well place a battleship in a pond middle of Damascus. That would make about as much sense.

Originally posted by Son of Will
That's how these relations often play out where diplomacy is rather hazy - politicians send subtle messages that have to be interpreted by other powers.

The only subtle message in such situation as proposed in the article is "we are ****ing idiots, on account of which you win".

reply to post by ausername


Except that they're much more of an escalation than Patriot, or even THAAD would be. Patriot works well against incoming missiles and aircraft. Mortars, and rockets aren't touched by it, so if they want to deal with them, they just drop some mortar rounds, and problem solved. An Iskander rocket, while as Maloy has said, doesn't make sense, as it's a huge escalation far above and beyond what Patriot is. And Patriot won't be deployed for weeks, or even months, so if Syria had these missiles now, that gives them the huge advantage in the region.

IF they were going to be deployed there, I could see them waiting until Patriot arrived, and let it be seen as a tit for tat gesture. "You put your Patriots there, I put my missiles here."

So this is the only source you have got ? I cannot seem to find anything from any Major News Corps.
But be realistic its obvious what Syria's intentions are. Regardless...

Originally posted by ausername


Russia has a naval base in Syria, and they do not want that falling under NATO control, regardless of what happens to the Assad regime. So, yes they do have a motive and reason to do this.

I don't think anyone is going to kick the Russians from their Naval base in Syria.



That would be like someone trying to kick out the US from Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.........


If they "want" to stay, they will.

Originally posted by ausername
That is a matter of perspective. From the Russian/Syrian perspective it provides Turkey (NATO) a huge tactical advantage and is an offensive system. Turkey could attack Syria with little fear of retaliation, they could move in and then NATO is now in control of Syria.

These Russian missiles can change all of that.

How exactly would a few conventional missiles change that? Armed with either a cluster warhead or a fuel-air explosive their blast/damage radious would be 500 meters at best. Not exactly a threat to Turkey's military capability is it? And Iskander missiles have not been adapted for chemical weapon use. Russia developed this missile system after it already retired militarized chemical weapons from its military arsenal, and no longer provisions for their use in its military tactics.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ausername

 

IF they were going to be deployed there, I could see them waiting until Patriot arrived, and let it be seen as a tit for tat gesture. "You put your Patriots there, I put my missiles here."

That would be the point.

reply to post by ausername


Except according to the source, the Iskanders are already in Syria. The Patriots are at least several weeks away for the first launcher. So it wouldn't be a tit for tat, it would be an escalation.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I agree, and it could just be a threat from Russia, however the deployment has been approved. Perhaps that was enough?

www.reuters.com...

The United States, Germany and the Netherlands, the only three NATO nations with the most modern type of Patriots, have all agreed to send missiles to protect their ally.

Germany and the Netherlands have each said they will send two Patriot batteries with multiple missile launchers.

A U.S. defense official said the United States would probably contribute two batteries, but the number has not been finalized yet and could go up.

Syria, Iran and Russia have criticized NATO's Patriot move, saying it would deepen instability in the region.

Russia accused NATO on Friday of moving towards involvement in the Syrian conflict, in spite of NATO assurances that the Patriots are intended purely for defensive purposes.

reply to post by ausername


Except that as Maloy pointed out, there are so many weapons that make so much more sense. If we deploy Patriots, deploy S300s. If we deploy MLRS, deploy the same. If you don't want to escalate things, or you want a tit for tat deployment, you deploy a similar weapon system, not something like the Iskander against Patriots. Iskander would be better for large targets, like air bases, none of which the FSA has.

I just love how a pseudo-news website of dubious origin and with even more dubious sources can generate this much discussion and influence people with absolutely absurd news backed by absolutely no credible evidence. Its a farce, much like Debka.

I can just as well create a website and call it something that sounds authoritative. I could then refer to a CIA secret operative calling himself Mr. Pickles (not his real name of course), who also happens to be a Kremlin, Beijing, Teheran, and Mossad insider. In fact Mr. Pickles has more intel than all of the US agencies combined. He knows things that CIA wouldn't even dream of. And Mr. Pickles claims definitively that Russia supplied Iran, Syria, and Luxembourg (don't ask), with SS-18 Multi-warhead ICBM, and threw in a few nuclear destroyers and top secret S-600 anti-air missiles for good measure. Heck half of the **** they gave them can't even fit inside Luxembourg. But he is a CIA insider - how can anyone claim he is wrong? God damn, the world is ending.


With all seriousness, there is absolutely zero chance Syria would have Iskanders. Some genious with a key board, an internet connection, and a website is just humoring himself.

reply to post by maloy


I said from the start that this wasn't likely, and the source was questionable. But discussions like this, when they're intelligent, and between reasonable people, are quite fun.

reply to post by Zaphod58


A slow buildup or a rapid escalation, difficult choices, regardless it is an extremely dangerous game.

It would be best if there was NO outside involvement in the Syrian conflict.

But ultimately, no one really cares about the victims in Syria, or the will of the Syrian people, they only care about what Syria will be after this all ends. In particular which side will have more influence on the country, Russia or the west/NATO?

reply to post by ausername


Russia and the US have almost always gone for the slow buildup, just because it's a lot easier to control. You give someone advanced weapons, when there's nothing to counter them, and they might just use them. Give them matching weapons, and they're less likely to use them.

America dare not hurt Russia because Russian equipment is too far advanced compared to USA pre 70's stuff, America is no match I can tell you, O like millions the world over I would like to see NATO meet it's match in a battle field, I will buy the Russian victors a drink of tea so they are able to do China after America.

reply to post by maloy


Well... I've already learned a little bit in this thread. Your reply to me alone was educational Learning why something is in error can be just as important as learning why something is factual.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

Ah, all that computer circuitry used in a weapon, seems like a perfect waste of the gold used in it.

Makes on think.. why aren't we using EMP shield technology? Bombs enter the shield and become duds.

Originally posted by Alternative4u
America dare not hurt Russia because Russian equipment is too far advanced compared to USA pre 70's stuff, America is no match I can tell you, O like millions the world over I would like to see NATO meet it's match in a battle field, I will buy the Russian victors a drink of tea so they are able to do China after America.

And you think it's a good idea to destroy China and the US why exactly? Ya know.. a lot of us Americans don't agree with a monarchy or the power it has over it's people at a whim but the people themselves are no ones enemy. We are just people like you. It's the governments that make us We The People look bad. Same with China.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

With all these defense budget cuts the past several years we need to see how our tech compares against another superpower.

edit on 8-12-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

Defense budget cuts huh? 700 billion dollars (putting the country into more unnecessary debt), isn't enough?