Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

poidinger: Jan 14, 2008; IGNORE ME

Xandu posted:

U.S. officials say they believe [Russian ships] are tracking American military movements in the area to share with the Syrian regime. U.S. officials say they believe Russian satellites and radar sites are also feeding information to the Syrian regime.

Well that significantly enhances the capability of Syrian air defense systems.

quote:

Mr. Putin said earlier this week that Russia would complete delivery of advanced S-300 air-defense systems to Syria if the U.S. strikes, which could shift the regional military balance.

Called it.

e: I wonder if the strike takes long enough to put together and gets expanded to airstrikes if the Russians will try to expedite a delivery even prior to a strike.. the Syrians are already trained and ready to go

also from earlier in the thread, since this got mentioned again:

Paper Mac posted:

I can't speak to the ASM stuff but for some of the SAMs we know pretty well how they tend to perform against modern American equipment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mole_Cricket_19

poidinger posted:

The BEKAA Valley Air Battle, June 1982: Lessons Mislearned?:

Qualitative advantages in equipment and manpower, however impressive, are relative; therefore, Syrian deficiencies-and there were plenty--were equally important in determining the outcome of the Bekaa Valley battle. In air combat, for example, the Syrians displayed a marked inferiority to the Israelis in tactics and training. The fact that they were largely dependent on ground control not only limited pilot initiative and independence but also encouraged the Israelis to continually jam their communication links. The constraints thus imposed on the Syrian pilots degraded their already inferior technological capabilities. An anonymous senior IAF officer concluded, "They could have flown the best fighter in the world, but if they flew it the way they were flying, we would have shot them down in exactly the same way. It wasn't the equipment at fault, but their tactics." General Eitan echoed this attitude, complaining that although the IAF encountered the MiG-25 during the Lebanon War, it was difficult to assess the aircraft's capabilities because "the Syrians don't know how to fly or operate the MiG, 25. If we could have been sitting in a MiG-25, nobody could have touched us."

Syrian SAM operators also invited disaster upon themselves. Their Soviet equipment was generally regarded as quite good; Syrian handling of it was appalling. As noted by Lt Gen Leonard Perroots, director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, "The Syrians used mobile missiles in a fixed configuration; they put the radars in the valley instead of the hills because they didn't want to dig latrines--seriously." The Syrian practice of stationing mobile missiles in one place for several months allowed Israeli reconnaissance to determine the exact location of the missiles and their radars, giving the IAF a definite tactical advantage on the eve of battle. Even so, the Syrians might have been able to avoid the complete destruction of their SAM complex had they effectively camouflaged their sites; instead, they used smoke to "hide" them, which actually made them easier to spot from the air. It is ironic that the Syrians, who have been criticized for their strict adherence to Soviet doctrine, chose to ignore the viable doctrine that emphasizes the utility of maneuver and camouflage. According to a 1981 article in Soviet Military Review, alternate firing positions, defensive ambushes, regular repositioning of mobile SAMs to confuse enemy intelligence, and the emplacement of dummy SAM sites are fundamental considerations for the effective deployment and survivability of ground-based air defenses.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html

poidinger fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Sep 6, 2013

# ? Sep 6, 2013 02:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 14:30

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

quote:

The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.

Military officials have been trying to predict the range of possible responses from Syria, Iran and their allies. U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned. U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

While the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579057271019210230.html

# ? Sep 6, 2013 02:59

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

poidinger posted:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html

Contrast that to this guy:

quote:

Based on experiences of the 1982 Lebanon War, constant relocation of all assets was key to survival of Dani's unit, the 3rd missile detachment of the 250th Serbian Air Defence Battalion. Although the SA-3 / "S-125M Neva" system is not a mobile SAM complex per design, its solid fueled missiles are transportable in near combat ready condition (in fact the Polish military created a mobile SA-3 version on T-72 tank chassis in the 1990s).

Therefore, Lt. Col. Dani trained his SA-3 unit to achieve a 90 minute equipment break-down time with minimal lighting provided for better camouflage, one hour better than the standard time. Further set-up and break-down time reductions were achieved by reducing the SA-3 unit's number of active 5P73 launchers and V-601P missiles to just 2x2 from the original 4x4 configuration.

This reduction in missile capability was justified, because of the expected strictly limited time slots and occasions where a Serbian SAM battery could open fire in face of a tremendous NATO Wild Weasel capability, with any hope of self-preservation. The lean use of SAM missiles also became a necessity later on, as the initial March 24, 1999, 20:20 NATO air strike destroyed a hundred reloads of ready to use V-601P missiles stored in two concrete vaults at the Jakovo SAM base.

Lt. Col. Dani made it a strict field rule that the SA-3's UNV type fire control radar could only be turned on for a maximum of 2 x 20 seconds in combat, after which the battery's equipment must be immediately broken down and trucked to a prepared alternative launch site, whether or not any missile has been fired. This rule proved essential, because other Serbian AAA units, emitting high-frequency radiation for any longer periods or forgetting to relocate, were hit by AGM-88 HARM missile counter-strikes from NATO aircraft, suffering radar equipment and personnel losses.

In order to train personnel to operate efficiently under such pressures, Zolt�n Dani obtained access to an "Accord" electronic signal simulator, which allowed the SA-3 radar and guidance crew practice combat scenarios based on imitated engagements. Several soldiers were removed from position both during the pre-war practice drills and wartime guard shifts, when they proved unable to cope with the psychological stress of being targeted by enemy aircraft.

It was decided two missiles would be launched against any target near simultaneously, in order to maximize hit probability. Unusually, launches were to be conducted against NATO aircraft that had already accomplished their ground strike missions and were about to leave Serbian airspace. Their northern heading was pointing away from the direction of powerful NATO airborne jammer sources, thereby allowing the SA-3's un-modernized UNV fire control radar set to operate with less interference.

Dani's mobility rule was strictly observed in his unit, with the trucks relocating frequently during the 78 days of Kosovo War, as they constantly shuttled missiles, radars and equipment among the dozen alternative launch sites, most of them embankments left over from already phased out SA-2 (S-75) units.

Radar sets obtained from confiscated Iraqi MiG-21 planes were planted around the SAM sites to serve as active emitter decoys, which diverted some anti-radiation missiles from the actual targets (dozens of Iraqi MiG-21/23 warplanes, sent to Yugoslavia for industrial overhaul, were seized in 1991, after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.) Retired SAM radar sets were used as optical decoys, left at well-known military bases to lure NATO planes to waste munition on worthless targets. Owing to these measures, Dani's unit evaded 23 incoming HARM missiles, all of which impacted off-site with insignificant or zero damages.

General surveillance of NATO aircraft was provided by vintage P-18 radar sets, which used vacuum tubes and a large rotating Yagi antenna grid for meter-band illumination. Under optimal conditions the Soviet-made P-18 was able to plot large-Radar cross-section aircraft from 125 to 200 km, depending on the target's size, but with a high range inaccuracy of several hundred meters.

Zolt�n Dani tuned his P-18 to the lowest possible frequency and further replaced four major capacitors in the electronics to achieve an even longer wavelength, hoping that meter band waves would reflect from the inside of targets, rendering stealth aircraft skin technology ineffective. In practice his modified P-18 provided stable plot of F-117 movements from just 25 km, which was useful when combined with the comparatively short missile range of the SA-3 air defence complex. Furthermore, the P-18 meter band radar could be kept almost constantly emitting, since most NATO radar warning receiver devices did not cover such a very low frequency band.

The stealth kill

On the particular night of the F-117 shootdown, 27 March 1999, Zolt�n Dani broke his own ruleset. He had information about unfavourable Adriatic weather conditions and Serbian spies residing near Italian NATO airbases informed the Serbian Air Defence HQ about lack of EA-6 Prowler electronic jammer and "Wild Weasel" anti-SAM aircraft launches during the late evening. Therefore any F-117s in the air on that fateful night were literally alone in the dark, but with high crew morale due to their invulnerability during previous day's sorties.

In the evening, Dani's P-18 long-distance radar set malfunctioned at 19:05, almost the same time when four F-117s prepared for take-off from Aviano Air Base to attack targets in Belgrade. The repaired P-18 radar returned to air by 19:50 and started to emit at the specially modified lower frequency. Lt. Col. Dale Zelko's plane (tail number 82-0806) and three other F-117 flying northbound were acquired at 20:40 local time and so the SA-3 battery's fire control radar went on air to provide a riding beam for V-601P missile launches. The UNV radar emitted at high frequency for 2 x 20 seconds, but it was unable to obtain a lock on the targets.

Lt. Col. Dani then ordered a third illumination round, against his own rulebook, but knowing that NATO lacked immediate counterstrike capability on the particular occasion. Lock was obtained and at a distance of 13 km and an altitude of 8 km. Two SA-3 missiles were launched in short succession, with one obtaining a proximity fuse hit, as notified by an automatic radio pinger burst. The F-117 was structurally disabled by the sudden minus 6G negative load and stall-crashed in inverted position in an agricultural field, near the village of Budjanovci. The pilot ejected successfully and was rescued later on by NATO Combat search and rescue helicopters. The F-117's large kite-shaped titanium engine outlet heatshield is still kept by Dani in his garage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%E1n_Dani

Most of this is unsourced, I think the guy may have edited in an explanation himself.

His trick with the stealth shootdown aside, he trained on and strictly followed shoot-and-scoot tactics and even went as far as keeping his launchers half-loaded (4 shots, or rather 2x2) to minimize their setup/teardown times (and he lived to tell the tale). That's the exact opposite of the Syrians, with their use of mobile launchers as fixed emplacements.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 6, 2013

# ? Sep 6, 2013 02:59

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

euphronius posted:

It was a combined response to you and Mainpainframe. Also international law is generally created through treaties and custom, to address another point you made. Treaties are an unquestionable source of international law. I really don't understand your point of view at all really, how could you say there is no way to determine if something is international law. The UN keeps a depository and index of treaties for this very purpose. Of course on the edges it can be hard sometimes to determine, but treaties for one thing are explicit international law. Admittedly custom gets murkier, but it can be readily determined and often is.

Aren't treaties more like contracts between two parties and not binding to anybody else? For example if I enter into a contract with another person it's just an agreement between us and not a law. It gets even more complicated for treaties because he only enforcement for treaties are the parties themselves. There isn't an international police that will get you when you fail to live up to a treaty. Your just going to get bombed by he other party. That even further suggests that there isn't an 'international law' as most of us understand it.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 03:03

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Xandu posted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579057271019210230.html

Seriously, Congress better refuse to authorize the strikes, otherwise we're looking at a major escalation from all sides in the region. Between this report and the other one about Shiite militias from Iraq prepared to support the Assad regime with manpower against the resistance, none of this can end well.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 03:06

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Paul MaudDib posted:

Contrast that to this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%E1n_Dani

Most of this is unsourced, I think the guy may have edited in an explanation himself.

Yeah that's an unbelievable level of detail. Though I imagine it could get pretty stressful only being able to turn your radar on for 40 seconds per day and then having to move every day or risk destruction.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 03:08

Sergg: Sep 19, 2005; I was rejected by the:

Honestly I'm not concerned with regional escalation. It's already happened. You've got a division of Hezbollah fighting inside Syria. Iraqi Shia and Iran bombing our embassy are going to have a negligible effect on the conflict inside Syria. The US might even be able to use the Iraqi Shia to mop up JAN. That's a terrible idea, btw, as it would make JAN more popular, but a lot of our policies have never been terribly forward thinking so there you go.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 03:13

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

evilweasel posted:

Yeah, international law is not "law" in the sense people think of it. There is no real book of international laws, there's no real way for things to become international laws. It is not really a coherent question if something is or is not international law, there is no really genuine source of authority to determine the question.

All of these statements are incorrect and all involve the UN.

quote:

The most famous case of "international law" - the Neuremburg Trials - just made it up as they went along and it was law because the victors of WWII said it was.

That may be the most famous case, but you are treating it as the sum total.

quote:

At the end of the day ~~international~~ law is nothing more than what people say it is, and whoever is strongest generally wins.

People tend to ascribe more legitimacy to ~~international~~ law than it really deserves because they view it as a way to check the ~~Great~~ Powers of the age. It never is. It's usually those ~~Great~~ Powers proscribing rules for lesser powers, and the only force they have on the powerful ~~nations~~ is a vague sense of embarrassment when they're too openly hypocritical.

I edited this this statement to make it more generally applicable. It's just as true but no longer a specific condemnation of international law.

Tezzor fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Sep 6, 2013

# ? Sep 6, 2013 03:16

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Sergg posted:

Honestly I'm not concerned with regional escalation. It's already happened. You've got a division of Hezbollah fighting inside Syria. Iraqi Shia and Iran bombing our embassy are going to have a negligible effect on the conflict inside Syria. The US might even be able to use the Iraqi Shia to mop up JAN. That's a terrible idea, btw, as it would make JAN more popular, but a lot of our policies have never been terribly forward thinking so there you go.

Also, Iran's fragile as is due to the mullahs and the IRGC devoting money toward Syria and not domestic policies. It's already viewed inside Iran as their Vietnam or Iraq War. A war would drive the entire country to the breaking point.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 03:18

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

Vladimir Putin posted:

Aren't treaties more like contracts between two parties and not binding to anybody else? For example if I enter into a contract with another person it's just an agreement between us and not a law. It gets even more complicated for treaties because he only enforcement for treaties are the parties themselves. There isn't an international police that will get you when you fail to live up to a treaty. Your just going to get bombed by he other party. That even further suggests that there isn't an 'international law' as most of us understand it.

Contracts are laws and governed by laws, some of it hundreds of years old. I have no idea what you are talking about there really.

Not trying to be mean but it sounds more like you don't understand it rather than most people don't understand it. International law is all relatively straightforward and has been around for hundreds of years in its more or less current form and goes back even to classical antiquity [look up jus gentium]. It might make it easier to consider that in international law the parties are nations rather than persons. International law is the rules that applies to the relations between states and nations, in general. You may be over-thinking it?

You seem fixated on the idea of enforcement, but as I mentioned above that is a reductionist and cynical definition of law, not even taking into account that international law is enforced anyway.

Also your statement that there is no international police is kind of funny considering the topic at hand.

edit

If you want a case example, consider the Somali Pirate situation, which I brought up earlier. In almost every instance the nations involved acted according to law (except Somalia of course) and eventually international law was "enforced" pursuant to a UNSC resolution and other mechanisms.

euphronius fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Sep 6, 2013

# ? Sep 6, 2013 03:55

Plastic_Gargoyle: Aug 3, 2007

McDowell posted:

Are we really worried about Assad shooting something down? Haven't the Israelis accomplished several strikes with no casualties?(except their line is 'no comment' ) The only real incident we had was the Turkish Fighter Jet - where the pilots thought they were in friendly space.

The slow arrival of Russian Naval Forces is more important than the Regime's existing air defenses (especially since they have had plenty of lead time to relocate stuff - and I guess try and fake out the satellites watching them)

The Israelis suffered no casualties because they came in unannounced, at low-level, and with (I assume) detailed intelligence on a specific set of targets, as well as the locations of relevant air defenses. Their operation was also on a microscopic scale compared to the kind of air campaign you're probably thinking of. It isn't a direct comparison, really.

Plastic_Gargoyle fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Sep 6, 2013

# ? Sep 6, 2013 04:04

Zohar: Jul 14, 2013; Good kitty

euphronius posted:

Contracts are laws and governed by laws, some of it hundreds of years old. I have no idea what you are talking about there really.

Not trying to be mean but it sounds more like you don't understand it rather than most people don't understand it. International law is all relatively straightforward and has been around for hundreds of years in its more or less current form and goes back even to classical antiquity [look up jus gentium]. It might make it easier to consider that in international law the parties are nations rather than persons. International law is the rules that applies to the relations between states and nations, in general. You may be over-thinking it?

You seem fixated on the idea of enforcement, but as I mentioned above that is a reductionist and cynical definition of law, not even taking into account that international law is enforced anyway.

Also your statement that there is no international police is kind of funny considering the topic at hand.

edit

If you want a case example, consider the Somali Pirate situation, which I brought up earlier. In almost every instance the nations involved acted according to law (except Somalia of course) and eventually international law was "enforced" pursuant to a UNSC resolution and other mechanisms.

No, he has a perfectly legitimate opinion which is held by numerous respectable authorities, it's not like it's a stupid fringe view that only someone with no experience of the subject can hold. The classic Hobbesian analysis is that the international order is in a state of anarchy by default since there's no central authority, like they said, and treaties are impermanent contracts dependent entirely on the favourable will of their particular parties. States are the paramount authority and as we have been demonstrated time and again while small countries might be subject to international law, large and powerful ones are not (except when they deign to abide by it). International law, from an intellectual-historical perspective, is a contingent concept that has very little directly to do with ancient jus gentium and mostly derives from a series of norms developed over the last two to four hundred years in Europe. These norms are just that, constructed norms dependent on immediate consent, and in that sense international law cannot be compared to law in any other context.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 04:26

Rev. Bleech_: Oct 19, 2004; ~OKAY, WE'LL DRINK TO OUR LEGS!~

Vladimir Putin posted:

The F-22 is a Bugatti Veyron--highly exotic, all the bells and whistles and high maintenance costs.

The air conditioning also tries to kill you if you cross time zones, it aims itself at bridge abutments when it rains, and occasionally the fire department will have to show up with the jaws of life because the door is sealed shut. :iiaca:

Plenty of trunk space for carrying combat lasers and load-bearing drywall though.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 04:30

euphronius: Feb 18, 2009

If your idea is that law can only exist when imposed from above by some leviathan than I guess there is no international law for you. Fine. That seems absurd to me, obviously. Nation states clearly compose their behavior in accordance with international law (except for the obvious violations of it.) But you wouldn't say criminal law does not exist because some murders go unprosecuted. And, again, international law is enforced, so . .

euphronius fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Sep 6, 2013

# ? Sep 6, 2013 04:32

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

It is quite a stretch to say that there is no international law. To say that it is perfect or omnipotent would be absurd, but there is definitely some amount of it and some amount of both infrastructure and authority ascribed to it.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 04:38

Charliegrs: Aug 10, 2009

poidinger posted:

Well that significantly enhances the capability of Syrian air defense systems.

Called it.

e: I wonder if the strike takes long enough to put together and gets expanded to airstrikes if the Russians will try to expedite a delivery even prior to a strike.. the Syrians are already trained and ready to go

also from earlier in the thread, since this got mentioned again:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html

The Russians were sharing intelligence and had advisors on the ground in Syria during the Yom Kippur war, and probably the Six Day war too. So this isn't anything new for them.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 04:42

MothraAttack: Apr 28, 2008

Looks like the campaign will be a bit more expansive than previously suggested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/pentagon-is-ordered-to-expand-potential-targets-in-syria-with-a-focus-on-forces.html?_r=0

ABC also cited a a senior U.S. official saying that the strikes will do more damage in "two days" than the rebels did in two years. Probably blustering, but still.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 04:48

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

euphronius posted:

Contracts are laws and governed by laws, some of it hundreds of years old. I have no idea what you are talking about there really.

Not trying to be mean but it sounds more like you don't understand it rather than most people don't understand it. International law is all relatively straightforward and has been around for hundreds of years in its more or less current form and goes back even to classical antiquity [look up jus gentium]. It might make it easier to consider that in international law the parties are nations rather than persons. International law is the rules that applies to the relations between states and nations, in general. You may be over-thinking it?

You seem fixated on the idea of enforcement, but as I mentioned above that is a reductionist and cynical definition of law, not even taking into account that international law is enforced anyway.

Also your statement that there is no international police is kind of funny considering the topic at hand.

edit

If you want a case example, consider the Somali Pirate situation, which I brought up earlier. In almost every instance the nations involved acted according to law (except Somalia of course) and eventually international law was "enforced" pursuant to a UNSC resolution and other mechanisms.

Contracts are not laws. I mean this is really basic ignorance here, you don't really have a good grasp of the subject but you're trying to talk down to people about it. Part of the problem appears to be that you don't really get what people mean when they say that international law is not law (and clearly didn't understand why this discussion originated).

International law is not law in the sense that people mean when they think of "law". It's not law in the sense there is a meaningful answer to the original question asked which is asking for an objective answer about what international law is on this particular subject. There is no objective law we can reference, no constitution, no court that can be convened that has real power to determine what it is. International law is custom and tradition, as enforced by the people who have the power to. So that means that it's inherently vauge rather than deterministic. People can causally talk about "international law" referring to treaties but that's not law. Contracts aren't law, they're agreements. Law isn't something you pick and choose if you're subject to it or not. Treaties are agreements - not even contracts really, when there's no external mechanism to punish violating them. They exist as long as everyone with enough power to violate them agrees that they're better off adhering to them.

Why this matters is that if you think of international law as "law", you're not going to understand why things happen. You're going to make errors like thinking that what really matters is an objective reading of principles of international law and the chemical ban treaty for if Syria will be allowed to use chemical weapons on its own people. That's not how international law works. It's custom, so the feeling that "this is wrong, deeply wrong" matters far more than any text or precedent. People feel that it shouldn't be allowed, so it isn't. Or they don't feel strongly enough to care, so it is. And so the question "is what Syria is doing a violation of international law" is not analogous to "is what that person is doing a violation of United States law?"

euphronius posted:

If your idea is that law can only exist when imposed from above by some leviathan than I guess there is no international law for you. Fine. That seems absurd to me, obviously. Nation states clearly compose their behavior in accordance with international law (except for the obvious violations of it.) But you wouldn't say criminal law does not exist because some murders go unprosecuted. And, again, international law is enforced, so . .

Yes, that's because you haven't thought about it and don't understand the subject. Evolution seems absurd to people too, and those people for some reason think their mere feeling of absurdity matters for some reason as well.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 04:52

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

The-Mole posted:

It is quite a stretch to say that there is no international law. To say that it is perfect or omnipotent would be absurd, but there is definitely some amount of it and some amount of both infrastructure and authority ascribed to it.

Nobody is saying international law does not exist. What people are trying to explain to you is that it's not law, in the sense people think when they think of laws in a nation. It's not even really that analogous except for the terms used.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 04:53

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

MothraAttack posted:

Looks like the campaign will be a bit more expansive than previously suggested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/pentagon-is-ordered-to-expand-potential-targets-in-syria-with-a-focus-on-forces.html?_r=0

ABC also cited a a senior U.S. official saying that the strikes will do more damage in "two days" than the rebels did in two years. Probably blustering, but still.

No, I can believe that. The rebels have been striking checkpoints and other exposed and vulnerable front line locations, but they have lost the ability to strike wherever they please. They might have killed a bunch of senior officers a year ago in a lucky bombing, but their operations have been curtailed since then. They lack the ability to strike against long range weapons systems like artillery and rocket launcher sites which has been hampering their progress on the battlefield. They might get some people close in to a tube-launched rocket mortar to film it, but not enough to fight off its escort to stop the launches. The only thing that will stop them are deep penetrative strikes against artillery sites.

So, yeah, I can believe an official saying that they can wreck Assad's military ability in 48 hours.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 05:04

Tezzor: Jul 29, 2013; Can't post for 3 years!

I don't know where you're getting all this. International law contains written-down, objective, codified laws. It has courts. It has means of overturning laws. It has declarations of rights and procedures. Some of it is custom and tradition rather than codified law, but so is much of law in the Commonwealth of Nations. You are however correct that there is no mechanism to enforce it on the powerful.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 05:06

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

So if Iran and Russia really step up their game after a limited strike against Assad, could this actually leave Assad not much worse for wear, and with some new Russian toys as well?

# ? Sep 6, 2013 05:19

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

evilweasel posted:

Nobody is saying international law does not exist. What people are trying to explain to you is that it's not law, in the sense people think when they think of laws in a nation. It's not even really that analogous except for the terms used.

Well yeah, that's why it is called 'international law' and is understood to be pretty substantially different, but still real. Y'all are pretty much agreeing, just disagreeing about what word to call it.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 05:30

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

euphronius posted:

It was a combined response to you and Mainpainframe. Also international law is generally created through treaties and custom, to address another point you made. Treaties are an unquestionable source of international law. I really don't understand your point of view at all really, how could you say there is no way to determine if something is international law. The UN keeps a depository and index of treaties for this very purpose. Of course on the edges it can be hard sometimes to determine, but treaties for one thing are explicit international law. Admittedly custom gets murkier, but it can be readily determined and often is.

A law that can be ignored at will isn't a law at all. Just because there's words written down on a piece of paper doesn't mean it has any legal force behind it.

euphronius posted:

If your idea is that law can only exist when imposed from above by some leviathan than I guess there is no international law for you. Fine. That seems absurd to me, obviously. Nation states clearly compose their behavior in accordance with international law (except for the obvious violations of it.) But you wouldn't say criminal law does not exist because some murders go unprosecuted. And, again, international law is enforced, so . .

No, no, I agree that there are laws written down on pieces of paper and books of law and fancy treaties. At the end of the day, though, "Is this legal?" is largely an irrelevant question. No amount of looking at the treaties and the precedents and the declarations is going to change the fact that every nation involved is going to interpret things in the way which best suits their interests, or even just flat-out ignore the treaties altogether. The legal documents exist, but what legal force do they have? In the real world, if the international situation warrants asking the question "Is this legal?", it can only be a purely academic question because the practical answer is always "no one involved really cares about international law".

A lot of people get preoccupied in picking through the details and the legalities because they assume that those things constrain countries in some way, when the answer to the original question is that it doesn't really matter whether a strike on Syria is legal because the US certainly doesn't care and no other country will condemn us for it except Syria's allies.

Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Sep 6, 2013

# ? Sep 6, 2013 05:36

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Paul MaudDib posted:

The F-22 has some real problems, but it's nowhere near the steaming deuce that the other programs are because it's a plane designed around a specific, realistic mission. Its "high-durability" stealth coating abrades away if the plane flies in rain, and becomes much less effective if the aircraft maneuvers (as most stealth does), or fires a weapon. The navigation system reset itself the first time it crossed the international date line, leaving the pilots to try and follow their tanker in for a leading. Also the oxygen system silently cut out on a pilot in Alaska and he blacked out and flew into a mountain.

quote:

The report found that the two-step process to manually activate the system required the pilot to pull the green ring up and out of the retaining slot and then pull it directly forward. The Air Force says the latter move may have the same force as pulling a 40- or more pound weight.
While the ring is attached to the seat by a lanyard, if it is dropped it can fall between the seats, making it difficult to retrieve, especially if the pilot is flying at night and wearing bulky winter clothing.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/20/f-22-fighter-jets-retrofitted-after-alaska-crash/#ixzz2e5POKcmF

That is some real engineering right there.

Also a lot of posters in this thread seemed very certain the action would only limited to cruise missile strikes. I think it is safe to become very cynical of some popular positive expectations of this coming bombing. More increasing mission creep along with the language of the bill seems to be pointing stronger in a broader action against the regime as a whole.

That said, if the US does knock over Assad and it comes lead to greater violence, it is very unlikely the US will take responsibility for its actions.

Ardennes fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Sep 6, 2013

# ? Sep 6, 2013 06:10

Pegged Lamb: Nov 5, 2007; Can't post for 3 years!

If they shot one down and captured the pilots could they ransom them to stop the operation or would we just go on

# ? Sep 6, 2013 06:44

MothraAttack: Apr 28, 2008

wikipe tama posted:

If they shot one down and captured the pilots could they ransom them to stop the operation or would we just go on

Probably keep on going.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 06:54

Gucci Loafers: May 20, 2006; Ask yourself, do you really want to talk to pair of really nice gaudy shoes?

Have their been any major developments on the battlefield? I'm looking at Wikipedia and it sort of seems the rebels have a slight edge.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 07:06

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

MothraAttack posted:

Probably keep on going.

We had a pilot go MIA in the Gulf War and it didn't stop us from bombing Saddam for twelve more years.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 07:06

MothraAttack: Apr 28, 2008

I remember finding Speicher being one of the reasons, out of many, a few neo-cons were calling for war in 2003. They were kind of grasping for straws at that point, though.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 07:27

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Multiple reports that the Muslim Brotherhood has been "dissolved" by the government in Egypt.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 08:38

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

Brown Moses posted:

Multiple reports that the Muslim Brotherhood has been "dissolved" by the government in Egypt.

Yep, according to Reuters, Sky News, and multiple Egyptian sources.

https://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi/status/375884654198661120

Good times ahead.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 08:41

Young Freud: Nov 26, 2006

Brown Moses posted:

Multiple reports that the Muslim Brotherhood has been "dissolved" by the government in Egypt.

With what, acid or quick lime?

# ? Sep 6, 2013 08:45

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

I don't think the US' grand plan for the Middle East is going to work out that well guys.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 08:49

Hong XiuQuan: Feb 19, 2008; "Without justice for the Palestinians there will be no peace in the Middle East."

Sergg posted:

Honestly I'm not concerned with regional escalation. It's already happened. You've got a division of Hezbollah fighting inside Syria. Iraqi Shia and Iran bombing our embassy are going to have a negligible effect on the conflict inside Syria. The US might even be able to use the Iraqi Shia to mop up JAN. That's a terrible idea, btw, as it would make JAN more popular, but a lot of our policies have never been terribly forward thinking so there you go.

That first sentence is a horrible thing to say. At the moment there is intl involvement in Syria through proxy. Direct US strikes would be a massive escalation. Iranians ordering attacks on American assets in 'friendly' territory would be a massive escalation. Russians providing weapons which could score hits on US assets would be a massive escalation. It would really turn into a powder keg and it would be dangerous for the US govt. I could see the US losing more men than in the 'Mission Accomplished' takeover of Iraq. This is bad medicine.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 09:11

MothraAttack: Apr 28, 2008

Here is an in-depth piece on the battle for Ma'loula. Interestingly, an unrelated comment on the article seems to suggest that hundreds of civilians are sheltering in Krak des Chevaliers castle. Am I misreading that, and they're really talking about the village near to it, or something?

# ? Sep 6, 2013 09:14

Hong XiuQuan: Feb 19, 2008; "Without justice for the Palestinians there will be no peace in the Middle East."

On top of that there are two million Syrian refugees in vicinity at the moment. God knows how many Iraqi refugees. Not all of them will be political, but some will be. And months in refugee camps can make people desperate. You could see flare ups - mini civil wars between ref groups or spilling over into trying to create swathes of territory for themselves in Jo or Lebanon. Or attacking Israel. Sound far-fetched? This was basically the 70s and 80s for the Levant.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 09:15

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Hong XiuQuan posted:

That first sentence is a horrible thing to say. At the moment there is intl involvement in Syria through proxy. Direct US strikes would be a massive escalation. Iranians ordering attacks on American assets in 'friendly' territory would be a massive escalation. Russians providing weapons which could score hits on US assets would be a massive escalation. It would really turn into a powder keg and it would be dangerous for the US govt. I could see the US losing more men than in the 'Mission Accomplished' takeover of Iraq. This is bad medicine.

Yeah, I don't get that attitude, Lebanon could always destabilize further and more Shia involvement in Iraq will have further consequences in Iraq itself.

Libya has been left to its fate, while Egypt's Junta is above reproach. The only answer that is now being heard in Washington is to escalate the conflict in Syria further.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 09:25

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

Anyone have any estimates when the missiles start flying? I need to get at least a box of beer, some pretzels beforehand and tune into fox news or something.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 09:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 14:30

MothraAttack: Apr 28, 2008

Hong XiuQuan posted:

On top of that there are two million Syrian refugees in vicinity at the moment. God knows how many Iraqi refugees. Not all of them will be political, but some will be. And months in refugee camps can make people desperate. You could see flare ups - mini civil wars between ref groups or spilling over into trying to create swathes of territory for themselves in Jo or Lebanon. Or attacking Israel. Sound far-fetched? This was basically the 70s and 80s for the Levant.

I think Lebanon could see that, but the UNHCR has a pretty good grip elsewhere.

# ? Sep 6, 2013 09:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »