|
Svaha posted:Thousands? Do You have a source for that, or is this just wild speculation?
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Anthony Cordesman's book on Arab-Israeli military forces puts the Syrian missile forces as: -18 SS-21 launchers with at least 26 missiles -12 Scud-B launchers with 200 missiles -36 Scud-C launchers with 150 missiles It also claims Syria can build their own Scud missiles at a rate of 30 per year and there are reports they can also build Chinese M-11 and M-9 missiles since the late '90s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Russia has admitted today that the Rebels may win: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20710561
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Russia has admitted today that the Rebels may win: They are evacuating Russians out of Syria, so I think the Russians feel it is very likely that the rebels will win. Edit: Am I the only one that feels that the revenge killings and the cleansing in the aftermath of this is going to be absolutely brutal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Anthony Cordesman's book on Arab-Israeli military forces puts the Syrian missile forces as: http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/russia-arms-syria-with-powerful-ballistic-missiles/ Apologies if it was already reported. e:  Wasn't even paying attention that it came from World Net Daily, I just didn't want to post the Wiki link. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
The source claiming iskanders is not credible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:They are evacuating Russians out of Syria, so I think the Russians feel it is very likely that the rebels will win. Just to be clear, they are making plans for a possible evacuation, not actually evacuating. At least according to the linked BBC article.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Svaha posted:It's like a post-apocalyptic maker fair. It's sort of mind boggling when you think what could happen in a few decades when 3d printer fabrication is more commonplace and DIY weaponized drones start to enter the mix. Yeah, today more than ever before there is available all sorts of consumer-grade products that can be re-made into weaponry or other tools of war. AK's, automobiles and I.E.D's have changed the way assymetrical conflicts are being fought in a profound way. Syria hints at the potential of lathes, grinders, welders and repurpoused videogame controllers. The conflict has not yet revealed the full rebellious potential in modern consumer electronics in my opinion. Point in case iN BM's diy playlist clip #7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOA6gJ9Cl5E This homemade hydraulic powered gun mount calls out for a computerized sighting gizmo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicted_impact_point
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The source claiming iskanders is not credible. What, you don't think that North Korea is going to cause a REAL-LIFE RED DAWN? e: OH MY GOD, THEY REMADE RED DAWN? Why was I not informed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:53
|
|
Canadian Surf Club posted:Went back a few pages and didn't see anything about this It's incriminating Saudi Arabia solely; the letter is from the Saudi Interior Ministry. But yes, that's what the letter says, death row convicts convicted of drug smuggling, murder and rape were pardoned, their families were paid monthly pensions in exchange for training and deployment for jihad in Syria. az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:It's incriminating Saudi Arabia solely; the letter is from the Saudi Interior Ministry. But yes, that's what the letter says, death row convicts convicted of drug smuggling, murder and rape were pardoned, their families were paid monthly pensions in exchange for training and deployment for jihad in Syria. A chance to survive (or escape), an AK-47, and money? I'd have to take that deal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:
No, I am loathing the coming "cleansing", which according to what little I've read (speculation/opinions/etc) it's going to be pretty bad. Some of the FSA groups, if they get power, will be really terrible. Whoever wins the civil war, the people of Syria are going to lose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
And we have no one but Assad to blame for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Crameltonian posted:Sure Russia doesn't like US policy towards Syria but there is quite a difference between two countries criticising each other in public and the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think you're being just a bit melodramatic there This is in Russia's backyard and NATO is deeply involved, and Russian resistance to a Missile Shield in Turkey could be comparable to the US not wanting Soviet missiles in Cuba. Not seeing eye to eye in the very unstable Mideast, the North Pole, and the Pacific could lead to major changes in Super Power relations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:It's incriminating Saudi Arabia solely; the letter is from the Saudi Interior Ministry. But yes, that's what the letter says, death row convicts convicted of drug smuggling, murder and rape were pardoned, their families were paid monthly pensions in exchange for training and deployment for jihad in Syria. Their families are also not allowed to leave Saudi and as far as I know it seems that the death sentence has been revoked, but they are not pardoned. The total comes to ~1300 death row inmates given a gun, some possibly inadequate training on par with conscript training, They will probably also be deployed in a very warhammer 40k fashion. Both sides of advance and retreat may as well spell death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Their families are also not allowed to leave Saudi and as far as I know it seems that the death sentence has been revoked, but they are not pardoned. So what you are saying is that they are the Last Chancers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
I'm not sure how commonplace that practice is but it seems to indicate a Saud attitude centered more around destabilizing the Assad regime/country than supporting rebels out of the kindness of their hearts. The conflict is divisive and confused enough without adding foreign suicide squads into the mix.
Canadian Surf Club fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Miltank posted:So what you are saying is that they are the Last Chancers? Not to venture off topic too much, but I'm kind of surprised that the Imperium has a judicial system that is more complex than execute on spot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
Miltank posted:So what you are saying is that they are the Last Chancers? More like the conscripts you get when you use Bring in the next wave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Miltank posted:So what you are saying is that they are the Last Chancers? Not too certain. The document doesn't make any allusions towards that certain point, but since they were released for the express purpose of fighting in Syria it might be true. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:What, you don't think that North Korea is going to cause a REAL-LIFE RED DAWN? Go watch the remake, then you'll understand why nobody told you. McDowell posted:This is in Russia's backyard and NATO is deeply involved, and Russian resistance to a Missile Shield in Turkey could be comparable to the US not wanting Soviet missiles in Cuba. Nukes in Cuba during the Cold War is not at all comparable to a missile defense system in Turkey that would be useless against Russia. The defensive system also isn't being put there as a blatant and transparent "gently caress you" to Russia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Additionally, there's just no way in hell NATO can sustain those Patriot batteries in Turkey. What do you think the odds are that the Netherlands would leave 2 out of 3 of their Patriot batteries in Turkey, even if it was possible to sustain that while rotating troops and equipment back to the Netherlands?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
IIRC, the Turks are planning to buy their own Patriot batteries in the next couple of years. I wouldn't be surprised if they're moving up the timetable after watching Syria turn into a warzone, especially since they border Iran.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:IIRC, the Turks are planning to buy their own Patriot batteries in the next couple of years. I wouldn't be surprised if they're moving up the timetable after watching Syria turn into a warzone, especially since they border Iran.  Fake edit: Oh, you mean Turkey borders Iran, not that Syria borders Iran. Still, ask Israel how much it matters who you border when it comes to needing missile defenses in case Iran fires missiles... But yeah, I'm sure Turkey is on the short list of Patriot purchasers, but right now Raytheon and LockMart are busy pumping out products for the UAE and the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
Seems some hardcore Islamists took it upon themselves to set a Shiite mosque on fire, I've done a write up on it here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
Canadian Surf Club posted:I'm not sure how commonplace that practice is but it seems to indicate a Saud attitude centered more around destabilizing the Assad regime/country than supporting rebels out of the kindness of their hearts. The conflict is divisive and confused enough without adding foreign suicide squads into the mix. I dont think the Saudis, Qatar, and the UAE ever wanted to help the rebels out of the kindness of their heart. I think it has more to do with helping to eliminate a very pro- Iranian regime in Syria and since the majority of Syria is Sunnis chances are the next "government" in Syria is going to be Sunni dominated and on friendly terms with Saudi. Basically, the Saudis and other gulf states are using the Syrian rebels in their proxy war against Iran.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Not too certain. The document doesn't make any allusions towards that certain point, but since they were released for the express purpose of fighting in Syria it might be true. Has the document been verified as real? It could be more "foreign criminals attacking the brave and noble Bashar" propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 01:56
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I dont think the Saudis, Qatar, and the UAE ever wanted to help the rebels out of the kindness of their heart. I think it has more to do with helping to eliminate a very pro- Iranian regime in Syria and since the majority of Syria is Sunnis chances are the next "government" in Syria is going to be Sunni dominated and on friendly terms with Saudi. Basically, the Saudis and other gulf states are using the Syrian rebels in their proxy war against Iran. Seeing as how Iran's been every bit as bad as Saudi Arabia and Iraq, if not worse, for the last three and a half decades, but nobody cares since Iran isn't aligned with the accursed foreign imperialists, who gives a poo poo? And don't start with the impending Alawi massacre since it's quite clear if you or anyone else gave the slightest poo poo about that there would've been a no-fly zone outcry when people started dying by the thousands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:And don't start with the impending Alawi massacre since it's quite clear if you or anyone else gave the slightest poo poo about that there would've been a no-fly zone outcry when people started dying by the thousands. This gets old. A no-fly zone is not what you think it is. Also, Syria has legit air defenses and planes/pilots would absolutely be lost. Even if the US obliterated their strategic SAMs, they have plenty of SA-22s which would probably cost us a few planes if they weren't utterly stupid with them. A no-fly zone doesn't stop artillery, TBMs, troops, and tanks which has caused most of the damage to the opposition forces and civilians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This gets old. A no-fly zone is not what you think it is. Also, Syria has legit air defenses and planes/pilots would absolutely be lost. Even if the US obliterated their strategic SAMs, they have plenty of SA-22s which would probably cost us a few planes if they weren't utterly stupid with them. The highest possible losses we'd suffer from implementing a no fly zone wouldn't compare to the losses seen in one month of Syrian warfare, and the dark future we're going to endure with a new failed state on the map, only this time, one with great armaments. mlmp08 posted:A no-fly zone doesn't stop artillery, TBMs, troops, and tanks which has caused most of the damage to the opposition forces and civilians. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Every conflict since the Wright Brothers time has seen the quickest and most expedient way to kill large numbers of people at once is with artillery fired from the air. It's already impossible to overthrow a government without access to breach loading rifles, but fighting an aerial enemy when you only have ground troops and minimal anti-tank and aircraft weapons leads to the worlds Algerias and Vietnams. The outmatched technology combined with an unwavering necessity to win the conflict also makes people resort to the least barbaric options available, which gradually rescind in these situations, especially as time and money are lost and the regime you're fighting can still count on good arms coming through its borders. The Syrian arms acquisition is also exacerbated by the lack of a no-fly zone on its borders, or an ocean embargo for Syrian ships and ports. If we want the conflict to end quickly, we either arm the rebels equal to the Syrians, which would be incredibly dangerous, or we have the war continue in a way where the violence is less brutal by enforcing a no-fly zone. Doing nothing has already given us a conflict that could've ended with 20,000 lives lost as a worst case scenario, and brewed up a conflict where hundreds of thousands dead is looking like a possibility. There's no good reason not to have a no-fly zone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This gets old. A no-fly zone is not what you think it is...A no-fly zone doesn't stop artillery, TBMs, troops, and tanks which has caused most of the damage to the opposition forces and civilians. Just wanted to foot stomp that. Libya wasn't a "no-fly" zone, it was an extensive bombing campaign against the ground forces of Ghadaffi's regime that was just masquerading under the extremely flimsy pretext of a "no-fly" zone to give it a tiny bit of legal cover. Also even a "no-fly" zone doesn't involve just patrolling above Syrian air bases preventing them from flying, it would involve extensive strikes against the entire Syrian military infrastructure, to include C2/leadership targets that are located in cities. There would almost certainly be collateral damage. Devil Child posted:The highest possible losses we'd suffer from implementing a no fly zone wouldn't compare to the losses seen in one month of Syrian warfare Politically the life of American (or other NATO country's) servicemembers is not equal to the life of a Syrian citizen. This isn't me being some Western ethno-centric rear end in a top hat, this is me stating political facts. So you can rant and rave about possible losses vs death tolls all you want, but it has nothing to do with reality. Devil Child posted:I have no idea where you're getting this from. Every conflict since the Wright Brothers time has seen the quickest and most expedient way to kill large numbers of people at once is with artillery fired from the air. Uh....yeah, this isn't even close to true. There's a reason artillery, not the air force, is the king of battle. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
I'd argue that is questionable, air support or supremacy has often dominated many battles, if the air coverage over Normandy hadn't been in Allies hands, the Germans could have run rampant with their Panzers. Artillery can swing a battle, but air coverage can decide a battle before it even begins.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
"no fly zone" has always been a flimsy pretext to bomb the crap out of military and sometimes civil infrastructure. Unless someone can name an instance where it actually adhered to the implied purpose of excluding planes from certain geographical area and nothing more?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Devil Child posted:And don't start with the impending Alawi massacre since it's quite clear if you or anyone else gave the slightest poo poo about that there would've been a no-fly zone outcry when people started dying by the thousands. There is no political will in the US or other NATO countries to begin a bombing campaign, especially one that would involve losses, and there's no political cover in the form of a UN/Arab League permission slip as their was in the case of Libya. It's also not clear that precipitating the fall of Assad and his government wouldn't just kick off another, bigger bloodbath that might engulf the entire area and lead to chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups. An intervention might also trigger a nightmare scenario where Assad decides to bring the temple down on his own head by launching a chemical attack on Israel. If that happened we could probably keep Israel on the leash, but I'm not willing to bet the house on it. The best that we can do is alleviate as much suffering as we can, ensure that the poison gas doesn't slip out, and help the post-revolution government stabilize and rebuild.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Svaha posted:"no fly zone" has always been a flimsy pretext to bomb the crap out of military and sometimes civil infrastructure. Unless someone can name an instance where it actually adhered to the implied purpose of excluding planes from certain geographical area and nothing more? Iraq prior to OIF and after Desert Storm. edit: We did attack SAM sites which actively tried to stop us from enforcing the no-fly zone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'd argue that is questionable, air support or supremacy has often dominated many battles, if the air coverage over Normandy hadn't been in Allies hands, the Germans could have run rampant with their Panzers. There's a difference between talking about what is critical for conventional military operations and what is more capable of efficiently killing large amounts of people. Air supremacy is absolutely vital to the former (being able to go over 60 years without having to worry about whose airplanes are flying overhead is pretty remarkable), but the latter is a simple matter of weight and physics. Now, this isn't taking into account the psychological effect that getting bombed by aircraft has vs being shelled (not that being shelled or hit with TBMs would be a picnic, so that psychological effect is debatable) but for straight up what is more capable of efficiently killing large amounts of people, it's artillery. Not even close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Iraq prior to OIF. There were still a lot of incidents of AA missiles launched and AAA shot back. But the Kuwaitis were giving us free gas for our aircraft (until 1999 or so), so it probably became something of a valuable training resource for combat pilots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:There's a difference between talking about what is critical for conventional military operations and what is more capable of efficiently killing large amounts of people. I can agree with that, but beyond rockets do the Syrian forces have much left in the way of field pieces? Makes you wonder if any of the rebels are artillery trained and can get the field pieces they captured in service, granted if they have ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'd argue that is questionable, air support or supremacy has often dominated many battles, if the air coverage over Normandy hadn't been in Allies hands, the Germans could have run rampant with their Panzers. You'll note that Devil Child said that since the age of the Wright Brothers, that had been true. WWI vets weren't terrified of airplanes. They were terrified of artillery, disease, and machine guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Iraq prior to OIF and after Desert Storm. Also the Balkans in the early '90s during the first part of Deny Flight (before it transitioned to the bombing campaign of Deliberate Force.) CommieGIR posted:I can agree with that, but beyond rockets do the Syrian forces have much left in the way of field pieces? This I honestly don't know, although they'd almost certainly have to be deserters from the Army (not that there aren't a fair amount of those) as employing indirect fire, especially over the distances that we're talking with artillery, isn't a skill that you can just pick up. Not to mention that since you'd presumably be employing it against a specific target and not want to indiscriminately reign destruction down (as opposed to Assad's forces, where indiscriminate targeting isn't a bug, it's a feature) you would have to have trained spotters to observe the fall of the rounds and call corrections, as well as a way to communicate reliably over that distance...it'd be a pretty complex undertaking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 04:57
|
|