Russia moving military ships to Mediterranean sea, near Syria -- Reuters article.

[blankslate]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-russia-navy-idUSBRE97S10U20130829

Interfax news agency quoted a source in the armed forces' general staff as saying Russia, Syria's most powerful ally, was deploying a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the "coming days".

Well, things could get "interesting".


According to the article the ship movements were part of a pre-planned exercise but.

"The well-known situation now in the eastern Mediterranean required us to make some adjustments to the naval force," the source said in a reference to the events in Syria.

Defence experts said the deployment of the two warships identified by Interfax could give Assad early warning of cruise missile launches, particularly by submarine, or jam radars or navigation systems, although they might never be used for this.

Of the above capabilities that the Russian ships have I'd think that they'd easily do the least provocative and alert Assad's forces when a cruise missile launch is detected.... (I just heard that Star Craft warning when the terran faction launches). Jamming Radars or Navigation systems could easily lead to shots being fired imo.

Just radioing Assad's forces and saying "Hey bud, better get into a bunker." that's pretty hard find reasons to shoot for communications activity.

"What we may be seeing here is an example of gunboat diplomacy rather than a deliberate attempt to interfere directly in any coalition strike militarily," said Lee Willett, editor of IHS Jane's Navy International.

"The simple presence of any ships will have an impact politically, and that is the primary intent."

Russia's chief of staff said in June the navy had stationed 16 warships and three ship-based helicopters in the Mediterranean, its first permanent naval deployment there since Soviet times.

Given that British Parliament is actually listening to their constituencies and votes down any involvement in the Middle East... Perhaps our representatives in Congress will listen as well?

*e2a*

According to a Gallup poll last May

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162854/americans-oppose-military-involvement-syria.aspx

68% of Americans oppose Military involvement in Syria even if all diplomatic measures fail.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Looks like Obama's "reset" plan isn't working out so well.

 

[blankslate]

The think is no matter who won the 2012 election this situation would likely have ended up where it is now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/world/middleeast/romney-condemns-obamas-syria-policy.html?_r=0

But Mr. Romney’s own prescriptions for ending the mounting death toll in Syria have been less definitive than his denunciations of the president.

He called for the United States to “work with partners to organize and arm Syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves” — a policy that goes somewhat further than Mr. Obama’s but falls short of the airstrikes advocated by Republicans like Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The White House has rejected arming rebel groups, saying it does not know enough about them and does not want to “further militarize the situation.”

As far as I know Governor Romney hasn't said anything on the situation after that article but it doesn't indicate him doing anything much different than the current administration if he had won in 2012

 

[Fern]

The think is no matter who won the 2012 election this situation would likely have ended up where it is now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/world/middleeast/romney-condemns-obamas-syria-policy.html?_r=0



As far as I know Governor Romney hasn't said anything on the situation after that article but it doesn't indicate him doing anything much different than the current administration if he had won in 2012

Timing is everything.

Many believe had Obama helped the rebels when this first started and before AQ traveled into Syria the situation would be far different.

But that bus left the station long ago. This has been going on for how long now?

Anyway, it's bogus to claim anybody else as President would be in this situation. That would require claiming the other would have made a 'red line' challenge too.

Fern

 

[blankslate]

Timing is everything.

Many believe had Obama helped the rebels when this first started and before AQ traveled into Syria the situation would be far different.

But that bus left the station long ago. This has been going on for how long now?

Anyway, it's bogus to claim anybody else as President would be in this situation. That would require claiming the other would have made a 'red line' challenge too.

Fern

Yes it is bogus to claim to know what might have happened... however, given how hawkish some Republicans have been perhaps another President might've gone far beyond just arming some rebels.

However, if those rebels were just given arms and they started making gains earlier then Assad might've just release the gas earlier as well...

I think that the point that any president would be facing some conundrum with Syria still stands.

However your point about dealing is what ifs is taken. And President Obama's Red Line statement was just ill-advised in any case.




===

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I think that the point that any president would be facing some conundrum with Syria still stands.

Yeah, I can certainly agree with that. Iran, Egypt, Libya and Syria etc were all going to happen no matter who was elected IMO.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

Yes it is bogus to claim to know what might have happened... however, given how hawkish some Republicans have been perhaps another President might've gone far beyond just arming some rebels.

However, if those rebels were just given arms and they started making gains earlier then Assad might've just release the gas earlier as well...

I think that the point that any president would be facing some conundrum with Syria still stands.

However your point about dealing is what ifs is taken. And President Obama's Red Line statement was just ill-advised in any case.

===

Whether it was mere naive stupidity (or stupid naivety) or he thought he had reason to publicly state it, in hindsight it certainly was stupid. And while I initially supported him, now I'm thinking the loss in credibility from not striking will be less damaging than the loss in credibility from striking. Kind of a lose-lose. So now I'm hoping he doesn't strike - but if he decides he has to do so, I'll support his decision.

I don't think we can make a determination about helping the rebels though, even though I was amazed when Hilary began calling Assad a reformer we could work with. It's easy to say that we should have helped them before al Qaeda traveled to Syria, but Syria is a major sponsor of terrorism so it's likely the terrorists were already there and merely saw an opportunity to be the cat rather than the paw. Hell, blind hog science suggests that even the CIA can occasionally get it right, so it could well be the rebels were heavily weighted toward terrorists from the start and it just took a while to come out.

Doesn't mean we can't arm the better (or less worse?) of the rebel groups now, but there's certainly no guarantee that a rebel government won't still be even worse than Assad's.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe they plan on starting a war with us! I hope they sink our ships to teach America a Lesson. Syria is not attacking us and we have no right to interfere in their civil war.

I think the USA should have a different tactic. We should sink all ships and planes entering or exiting Syrian Air Space. It is other countries that are causing a lot of the problems in Syria. If Iran is sending troops into Syria then they Syria should declare war against Iran.

 

[diesbudt]

Maybe they plan on starting a war with us! I hope they sink our ships to teach America a Lesson. Syria is not attacking us and we have no right to interfere in their civil war.

I think the USA should have a different tactic. We should sink all ships and planes entering or exiting Syrian Air Space. It is other countries that are causing a lot of the problems in Syria. If Iran is sending troops into Syria then they Syria should declare war against Iran.

Teach America a lesson? You mean the lesson of enacting Retaliation against an attack when the world goes to war?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Maybe they plan on starting a war with us! I hope they sink our ships to teach America a Lesson. Syria is not attacking us and we have no right to interfere in their civil war.

I think the USA should have a different tactic. We should sink all ships and planes entering or exiting Syrian Air Space. It is other countries that are causing a lot of the problems in Syria. If Iran is sending troops into Syria then they Syria should declare war against Iran.

You are losing it.

Sinking ships costs lives and can escalate. There is not need for such.
There are no bones to pick with Russia.

What authorization to we have to institute an embargo of Air & Sea w/ respect to Syria.
They have not attacked us in any way; have not threatened us (w/ exception of a potential 11 yr olds text bravado message).

What other countries are meddling in Syria affairs.
Russia and Iran support Syria/Assad at this point. Russia has been since '48; Iran since they kicked the Shah out.
Eliminate them as meddlers in the civil war.

On the rebel's side; which countries are sending troops to assist. OR are some just sending in weapons.
Mercenaries always show up in every war; who are the actual nations sending in support against Assad.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Russian Navy vs. U.S. Navy. I wonder which side would win that fight.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

would be pretty dumb to go in

 

[cyclohexane]

Maybe they plan on starting a war with us! I hope they sink our ships to teach America a Lesson. Syria is not attacking us and we have no right to interfere in their civil war.

I think the USA should have a different tactic. We should sink all ships and planes entering or exiting Syrian Air Space. It is other countries that are causing a lot of the problems in Syria. If Iran is sending troops into Syria then they Syria should declare war against Iran.

I hope you're on one of those ships that gets sunk.

 

[Veramocor]

Russian Navy vs. U.S. Navy. I wonder which side would win that fight.

Can't have a naval war without it escalating into full out war but if you could:

Surface fleet only? Russians would lose badly. It would be the biggest naval loss since the Battle of Tsushima (ironically Russians lost also).


Throw in the submarine fleet and then it becomes interesting because it is so hard to defend against submarines. I could see both Mediterranean surface fleets being wiped out.

 

[DrPizza]

I don't think submarines are necessarily that difficult to defend against - they have the element of a surprise attack against land, but I don't think they can get close enough to launch a surprise attack against modern navies. If that were the case, then our entire surface fleet is rendered obsolete in case of war against a country with significant submarine capabilities.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I don't think submarines are necessarily that difficult to defend against - they have the element of a surprise attack against land, but I don't think they can get close enough to launch a surprise attack against modern navies. If that were the case, then our entire surface fleet is rendered obsolete in case of war against a country with significant submarine capabilities.

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Russian Navy vs. U.S. Navy. I wonder which side would win that fight.

You are are killed by 5 nukes. You kill your opponent with 10.

Who lived to brag?

Anyway this is what we do. Russia is doing the same.

I expect nothing but concern, which is really the point.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

There's always Russian ships in the Mediterranean sea so all I see is saber rattling.

 

[Fern]

Whether it was mere naive stupidity (or stupid naivety) or he thought he had reason to publicly state it, in hindsight it certainly was stupid. And while I initially supported him, now I'm thinking the loss in credibility from not striking will be less damaging than the loss in credibility from striking. Kind of a lose-lose. So now I'm hoping he doesn't strike - but if he decides he has to do so, I'll support his decision.

I agree.

I'm not going to support a strike, though. In my book he's on his own. But I will no longer criticism him for striking w/o congressional approval since he's at least reaching out to them.

I don't think we can make a determination about helping the rebels though, even though I was amazed when Hilary began calling Assad a reformer we could work with. It's easy to say that we should have helped them before al Qaeda traveled to Syria, but Syria is a major sponsor of terrorism so it's likely the terrorists were already there and merely saw an opportunity to be the cat rather than the paw. Hell, blind hog science suggests that even the CIA can occasionally get it right, so it could well be the rebels were heavily weighted toward terrorists from the start and it just took a while to come out.

I don't think so Werepossum.

AQ is Sunni and they hate the bejeesus out of Shias.

Assad and the Syrian leadership are Alawites (a form of Shia). Iran, Syria's ally, is also Shia.)

I don't see any damn way Assad would knowingly allow any AQ in Syria. In fact, I suspect he worked hard to keep AQ out.

Doesn't mean we can't arm the better (or less worse?) of the rebel groups now, but there's certainly no guarantee that a rebel government won't still be even worse than Assad's.

I heard two interesting interviews in the past 24 hours:

1. The first was a photographer who had been Syria for some time covering the rebel uprising. He's been in prison in Syria the last 2 or 3 months and just got out and flew to the USA. (I'm thinking that although he spoke very good English that he was French. I could just catch a bit of the underlying accent.) Anyway, the interesting part is that in his opinion/experience, the moderate Syrians who first started this are all gone. Many dead, others forced out or simply left. They've virtually all been replaced. I.e., it's not clear if there's really any 'good' rebels of substantial force worth helping at this point.

2. A CIA (retired). In his opinion there is no nation of Syria anymore. It's been balkenized with enclaves of Sudaneze, AQ and others who have entered Syria and taken over various locations. (Of course Assad controls Damascus IIRC.)

It sounds like fustercluck of epic proportions, and that it may be that way for quite some time.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
If Iran is sending troops into Syria then they Syria should declare war against Iran.

Seriously?

Come on man, Iran is sending SUPPORT to Assad.

Fern

 

[Orignal Earl]

Seriously?

Come on man, Syria is sending SUPPORT to Assad.

Fern

Who's doing what now?
pisa is sitting there looking at your post and just getting more confused

 

[blankslate]

There's always Russian ships in the Mediterranean sea so all I see is saber rattling.

The article said as much...

"What we may be seeing here is an example of gunboat diplomacy rather than a deliberate attempt to interfere directly in any coalition strike militarily," said Lee Willett, editor of IHS Jane's Navy International

Yes it was planned but the Russians did make some change because of the Syrian mess.

"The well-known situation now in the eastern Mediterranean required us to make some adjustments to the naval force," the source said in a reference to the events in Syria.

What were those "adjustments"?

Perhaps it's something related to the actions that Russian ships might take.

The article spoke of defense experts who surmised that they could provide early warning to Assad's forces about U.S. cruise missile launches.

That's a fairly defensive use that the U.S. can't really do much about unless the administration is just willing to escalate the situation which it seems to not want to do.

 

[lozina]

Russian Navy vs. U.S. Navy. I wonder which side would win that fight.

It would be a lose lose situation I would think. Anti ship missiles would ensure both side's vessels end up at the bottom of the sea.

Some people seem to be convinced that conventional anti air defenses can stop these threats, but those people are about as delusional as the school kids in the 50's thinking hiding under a desk will save them from nuclear annihilation. The rest of the people saying this are just doing it to keep the morale high enough for folks on navy vessels not to jump in the water and swim away as soon as war breaks out.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/bl...ls-to-advanced-anti-ship-cruise-missiles.html

 

[davmat787]

It would be a lose lose situation I would think. Anti ship missiles would ensure both side's vessels end up at the bottom of the sea.

Some people seem to be convinced that conventional anti air defenses can stop these threats, but those people are about as delusional as the school kids in the 50's thinking hiding under a desk will save them from nuclear annihilation. The rest of the people saying this are just doing it to keep the morale high enough for folks on navy vessels not to jump in the water and swim away as soon as war breaks out.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/bl...ls-to-advanced-anti-ship-cruise-missiles.html

Don't forget that there is a USN submarine in the equation. Not that it changes the vulnerability of ships to anti ship missiles, unless the submarine was to strike first of course. Two thoughts:

Are the CIWS systems that are on US Navy ships capable of destroying incoming anti ship missiles that fly at mach 3+? :hmm:

I wonder when the last sinking of an enemy ship to a US submarine torpedo? :hmm:

 

[EagleKeeper]

Don't forget that there is a USN submarine in the equation. Not that it changes the vulnerability of ships to anti ship missiles, unless the submarine was to strike first of course. Two thoughts:

Are the CIWS systems that are on US Navy ships capable of destroying incoming anti ship missiles that fly at mach 3+? :hmm:

I wonder when the last sinking of an enemy ship to a US submarine torpedo? :hmm:

1) Was the anti-ship fired from land, sea or air.
Air launched: Difficult to carry enough punch to bring down a ship unless a magazine is hit.
Excellent chance that what ever the target it; there will be air interceptors around to make such a shot tricky (distance needed for good targeting). without a CAP, the launch aircraft is on a one way trip.
Sea launched:
While it can have the punch; the launch platform is also vulnerable to retaliation well before the original missile arrives.
Ground launched:
Greatest damage; shortest range. Unless it is a mobile platform; a shot will generate cruise missile retaliation. Mobile platforms have less punch and require more exposure to setup and target.

2) Most high speed weapons when fired in quantity will be able to get through the CIWS. However, flying through a wall of depleted uranium can create problems with accuracy and targeting. One or two missiles fired at a time are much more vulnerable - more firepower from the three zones can be concentrated.

3) Most ships lost to a torpedo are not reported as such. Very embarrassing to the loser. The old Soviets, and NK would be the ones that needed to count their fingers and toes every once in a while.