Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
x8 The only system there that can meaningfully engage our high end assets is the S400, and the low frequency radars they use to track stealth aircraft have a very limited ability to resolve targets. The general consensus is that a small strike package could easily get in and out and destroy those systems, or other targets while evading fire. And as far as BMD, like with Patriot a massed strike can easily overwhelm the system.
Of course, it’s a moot point since killing Russians is a no go.
They should have sent a poet.The problem with low frequency radar is that the low frequency means it has a very low resolution. It can detect the presence of stealth aircraft when checked against conventional radars, but it has trouble forming an image of them. The real risk when it comes to stealth aircraft are predictable flight patterns, if you know where an aircraft is gonna be it's a lot easier to shoot down. All of the shootdowns on stealth aircraft to date have been done that way.
Really though, whether it can or not doesn't matter. If there's even a single Russian sitting at the controls we aren't gonna do anything, unless we feel like risking WW3. We can still significantly degrade Assad's capabilities regardless, with strikes on his infrastructure. That would be where France and the UK could get in, aircraft based from RAF Akrotiri could strike targets in Syria on short order.
edited 13th Apr '18 5:28:42 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.I find it rather odd that, years after the Cold War, we've apparently become more afraid of WWIII breaking out if we kill Russian advisors during airstrikes and the like.
UN forces shot down Soviet pilots over Korea and vice versa. Americans shot down Soviet pilots over Vietnam and vice versa. Soviet military personnel were killed in any number of proxy wars in Africa and the Middle East, by American allies, and Americans died in proxy wars at the hands of Soviet allies. At no point did it start World War III.
It's one thing to say that striking Assad is out because if Russians are killed it will cause a diplomatic incident. It absolutely would. But the Third World War talk is pretty hyperbolic.
Trump is addressing the nation on Syria tonight, and Pence might be returning from South America early.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/us-trump-syria
Something is coming...
edited 13th Apr '18 6:02:04 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.UN forces shot down Soviet pilots over Korea and vice versa. Americans shot down Soviet pilots over Vietnam and vice versa. Soviet military personnel were killed in any number of proxy wars in Africa and the Middle East, by American allies, and Americans died in proxy wars at the hands of Soviet allies. At no point did it start World War III.
It's one thing to say that striking Assad is out because if Russians are killed it will cause a diplomatic incident. It absolutely would. But the Third World War talk is pretty hyperbolic.
edited 13th Apr '18 6:05:40 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangAttacking Khmeimim would be like Russia sending a bunch of cruise missiles into Ramstein.
No it wouldn't, because Ramstein's not in a warzone. It would be more akin to killing Soviet (and Chinese) personnel in a bombing run in North Vietnam. Which the Americans did repeatedly I might note, without prompting either the Soviets or the Chinese to directly confront American troops on the ground.
I concur that it's not a risk that's worth taking—but I wish people would stop acting like World War III is right around the corner. It was irritating when the Trump/Putin fanboys were insisting Clinton's no-fly zone would "start a war with Russia" and this just feels like more of the same.
Are there things America could do that would legitimately risk a violent confrontation with Russia? Yes. Are all of those things fare more likely to happen than they should with Trump in charge? Yes. But we should save our panic for when one of those things happens.
It would be because it's an airbase of similar importance.
Syria is 100% a hill Russia will start WW3 over. It's one of their only warm water ports and the launching point for all their operations in the Middle East.
They cannot be removed from it. This is not some glorified border skirmish like so many other Cold War era proxies.
Oh really when?

Why the fuck do the UK and France want to be part of this Syria thing?
edited 13th Apr '18 4:34:25 PM by Wariolander