Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I love the "No Blood for Oil" argument

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:


Of course, I don't think even our largest UAV's can carry ordnance up to that task, no?

Do the Syrians have anything capable of hitting a B-2?

I think UAV's can carry enough ordinance to get most jobs done. Depends how hard their chemical stockpiles are.

And if the B-2s are safe to fly...


Plus we can always enforce a no-fly zone and keep their own aircraft grounded.

Syrians have some of the best Russian air defense equipment. If anyone in that region could hit a B-2, it would be them.

 Jihadin wrote:
but you be saying something different in 3-4 years

I've been hearing that for a decade

Truly, this is the year Bush is vindicated and/or Linux competes on the desktop!

 djones520 wrote:
Syrians have some of the best Russian air defense equipment. If anyone in that region could hit a B-2, it would be them.

If thats the case, why is Israel able to fly in on multiple occasions, hit their target, fly out with zero losses and suffer zero retaliation?

 djones520 wrote:

Because Syria is a nation backed by two (very potential) future enemies of the US, who have significant NBC capabilities, Iran and North Korea.

I would say that Iran and North Korea are current, rather than potential, enemies of the US.

 djones520 wrote:

We told them not to cross that line, do not use those weapons. They have multiple times now. If we do not do something, then those other folks are that much more emboldened.

Obama stated that the use or movement of chemical weapons would cross a "red line", and alter his "calculus". After that statement was made the US began to support Syrian, rebel groups. So it has done something, it simply hasn't engaged in direct, military intervention.

 djones520 wrote:

Plus, now that Assad has let that cat out of the bag, there is nothing stopping him from using them on Israel, or Turkey, in the event things start going south for him.

Well, aside from all the things that were stopping him from doing so before. Notably the Israeli military, the Turkish military, the US military, the assorted European militaries, and arguably the contingencies associated with Russian support.

Israeli pilots flies like a 100 ft off the ground.

Yeah, they got some ballsy pilots. If you are low enough the AA can't get a fix.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, they got some ballsy pilots. If you are low enough the AA can't get a fix.

Pretty much. The Israeli AF is flat out crazy good.

Flying at the deck, is a lot differant for ADA then a bomber flying at 35,000 feet. If the ADA is advanced enough they will be able to see him. The question is, is it advanced enough.

That is something that I do not know. I could probably find out though... *contemplates going to talk to the intel guys*

 CptJake wrote:
We could interfere in Mexico and don't.

This one isn't true, actually. The US has been quite busy across the Rio Grand. So, and let me summarize this: the US should be ok with sacrificing thousands of US servicemen for the profit of major corporations, but is opposed to fighting a war on moral grounds to stop war crimes and genocide. And yet by the rest of your post you suggest this is a good thing, as opposed to being ass backwards?

 CptJake wrote:

So basically you are for a full out invasion on a bigger scale than what we did in Iraq, because to have a chance at your objectives that is what you are talking about. I say we cannot afford that right now, and that it wouldn't work even if we could. As soon as you say we should be involved in 'nation building' I say you extremely ignorant of what is going on over there and what 'nation building' in that region entails.

Enlighten me then. What do you think nation building there would entail.

 CptJake wrote:

By the way, what treaty would we be honoring? I am unaware of any treaty that would justify us going into Syria.

Article 5 springs to mind. Turkey IS a NATO member state There's also the web of agreements between the US and Israel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

Syrians have some of the best Russian air defense equipment. If anyone in that region could hit a B-2, it would be them.

It doesn't take the best. The Serbs pulled it out of their ass and hit F117s over Bosnia with obsolete crap. You can target a stealth as long as you don't mind burning up your radar to do it.


The IDF pilots also have the advantage that they're flying a very short distance.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

The IDF pilots also have the advantage that they're flying a very short distance.

Yeah, they can pull a hard 180 and be back home in only a couple minutes.

IDF pilots are crazy good? Only have to fly a short distance? I'm sold - we're not needed, it sounds like Israel should be able to handle this within hours.

So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?

Syria couldn't afford a war with anyone at the moment, not when they're busy with the rebels.

 Ouze wrote:
IDF pilots are crazy good? Only have to fly a short distance? I'm sold - we're not needed, it sounds like Israel should be able to handle this within hours.

Too many potential targets, not enough planes. Though Damascus is practically on the boarder with Israel. One thing an invasion of Syria will have going for it is that the majority of it's fighting would be within range of fire support from across the boarder or the ocean. Unlike Iraq (which is both larger and higher in population) the cities developed around the trade routes between Egypt and the Bosporus rather than along the rivers, so everything is along the boarder or along the shore.

"I wouldn't have a problem with drone strikes on weapons stockpiles,"

Lets hope if they are launched they miss....

If military grade Sarin is released when a Syrian military stockpile is hit upwind of a major city then the President will be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and the press will see what death from Sarin gas really looks like...

Last time checked Russia and China were the Syrian government's main allies.

Russian military advisers are in place at Syrian Army Air Defense Command and Control sites.

What do you think Putin will do when his troops are killed?

What we we do in their place when a foreign attack commits an undeclared act of war against an alley when that attack also releases a weapon of mass destruction that kills thousands of innocent civilians and many of our own troops?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
What we we do in their place when a foreign attack commits an undeclared act of war against an alley

Depends who was in it. If it was empty, we'd probably let it go, it's always got drunk guys peeing in it anyway.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

"I wouldn't have a problem with drone strikes on weapons stockpiles,"

Lets hope if they are launched they miss....

If military grade Sarin is released when a Syrian military stockpile is hit upwind of a major city then the President will be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and the press will see what death from Sarin gas really looks like...

Last time checked Russia and China were the Syrian government's main allies.

Russian military advisers are in place at Syrian Army Air Defense Command and Control sites.

What do you think Putin will do when his troops are killed?

What we we do in their place when a foreign attack commits an undeclared act of war against an alley when that attack also releases a weapon of mass destruction that kills thousands of innocent civilians and many of our own troops?

I'm far from being an expert, but the quick read up I did on Sarin gas properties (http://sc-ems.com/ems/NuclearBiologicalChemical/Sarin/sarin.htm) seems to indicate that it's persistency in cool summer temperatures (15 celcius) is about 30 minutes. I imagine the blast from most payloads would be enough to annihilate a good quantity of the substance.

And your evaluation of it's lethality seems way off. A ton of Sarin gaz will kill 300-700 peeps per km assuming a population density of 3k-10k per square km.

I also imagine that modern armies have answer to bombing specifically hazardous locations.

Fuel Air Bomb

 Jihadin wrote:
Fuel Air Bomb

wat? (whembly innocently asks...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/27/syria-chemical-weapons-us-response/2705299/

Yes, France is ready to punish them by ordering Americans to punish them.

 Jihadin wrote:
Fuel Air Bomb

What I figured.

Slightly disappointed it isn't plasma bombs like in The Rock.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I imagine the blast from most payloads would be enough to annihilate a good quantity of the substance.

And your evaluation of it's lethality seems way off. A ton of Sarin gaz will kill 300-700 peeps per km assuming a population density of 3k-10k per square km.

I also imagine that modern armies have answer to bombing specifically hazardous locations.

Sarin isn't typically stored as Sarin, but rather as it's precursor chemicals. (Sarin itself has a short shelf life as well). Typically the chemicals are mixed as the rocket or projectile travels to it's target.

The other problem is we don't know what else is mixed in with sarin and chlorine among Syria's chemical weapons. Something like phosgene (which has a very faint odor and if you can smell it you've already been exposed to 4 times a 'safe' amount, wear your detection pin) or vinyl arsine (can persist for weeks in buildings) mixed in with the sarin and well...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Fuel Air Bomb

Great unless there's also something like phosgene stored there and then you have a big and poisonous explosion.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?

If Israel tackles this alone it will open them up to attacks from all the surrounding nations that are hostile towards them. We know there's plenty of countries there who can't wait to jump in on a war Israel started.

Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more

 Jihadin wrote:
Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more

Iran would like a peace of that candy though.

Regardless I'd rather not risk that entire region going into all out war, because if just one of them does have a brainfart, that's what we'll be facing and there is no way we would be able to keep out of that.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?

If Israel tackles this alone it will open them up to attacks from all the surrounding nations that are hostile towards them. We know there's plenty of countries there who can't wait to jump in on a war Israel started.

But there is no country able at the moment. They have tried before in seemingly overwhelming power, but now at least Syria and Egypt are out. Im not betting on Jordan trying it on their won. So one could argue its going good for Isreal at the moment, with its former opponents struggling with domestic unrest.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more

Iran would like a peace of that candy though.

Regardless I'd rather not risk that entire region going into all out war, because if just one of them does have a brainfart, that's what we'll be facing and there is no way we would be able to keep out of that.

If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?

If Israel tackles this alone it will open them up to attacks from all the surrounding nations that are hostile towards them. We know there's plenty of countries there who can't wait to jump in on a war Israel started.

But there is no country able at the moment. They have tried before in seemingly overwhelming power, but now at least Syria and Egypt are out. Im not betting on Jordan trying it on their won. So one could argue its going good for Isreal at the moment, with its former opponents struggling with domestic unrest.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more

Iran would like a peace of that candy though.

Regardless I'd rather not risk that entire region going into all out war, because if just one of them does have a brainfart, that's what we'll be facing and there is no way we would be able to keep out of that.

If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.

Fair enough, but I still don't want that to happen.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?

If Israel tackles this alone it will open them up to attacks from all the surrounding nations that are hostile towards them. We know there's plenty of countries there who can't wait to jump in on a war Israel started.

But there is no country able at the moment. They have tried before in seemingly overwhelming power, but now at least Syria and Egypt are out. Im not betting on Jordan trying it on their won. So one could argue its going good for Isreal at the moment, with its former opponents struggling with domestic unrest.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soladrin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more

Iran would like a peace of that candy though.

Regardless I'd rather not risk that entire region going into all out war, because if just one of them does have a brainfart, that's what we'll be facing and there is no way we would be able to keep out of that.

If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.

Fair enough, but I still don't want that to happen.

Well I think were in luck on that part. Neither Isreal and Iran would make the first move.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.

Not even close. Iraq was old migs. Iran is F14s.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.

Not even close. Iraq was old migs. Iran is F14s.

I meant more in the measure of the West intervenes against a foreign aggresor (i.e. Iran). But will use the oppurtunity to hit some targets its always wanted to without having to invade. Besides, now the US has F-22's and arent they supposed to be made just for such a job (the F-14's)?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.

Not even close. Iraq was old migs. Iran is F14s.

That's a joke. Iran's F-14's are 40 years old, and haven't seen a western maintenance depot in that time frame. They are not a threat to our aircraft. The most advanced aircraft they have is the Mig-29, some of which were Iraqi. All in all, their total Air Superiority force makes up about a single Wing of our aircraft.

The Iranian Air Force is not a threat to ours, the Israeli's, or any other major western power. Their ability to wage a war with Israel is non-existant without the support of the surrounding Arab nations, and I gaurantee you Iraq will give Iran a big feth YOU, before they let any of their military into their space.