Could this latest crisis escalate into a world war between Russia and the US?

scolairebocht

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
904


While I don't wish to be alarmist are we sleep walking in the direction of a potential global conflict in the next few days, weeks?

To recap we have, especially since the fall of East Aleppo a few months ago, a Syrian government which is well on its way to defeating its Islamist insurgency and asserting control over the whole country. Then the chemical weapon incident occurs, the US claims to be ever so outraged, bombs Syria and, incredibly, now, as I write this, Tillerson, the US Secretary of State, after consulting the G7, seems to be sending some sort of ultimatum to the Russian government which is a step that often precedes war.

Ok so there are two possible scenarios being played out here it seems to me:

a) What we are being told is that this is a sudden change of heart - actually an incredibly surprising 180 degree turn - by the US President shocked and saddened by the loss of life to chemical weapons. Hence presumably under this scenario the missile strike will just be a once off, maybe accompanied by some small slap on the wrist type new sanctions and the world will return to its usual mostly peaceful chaos and nothing much happens. But the hype around this G7 meeting seems to presage some more fundamental change in US policy.

b) The somewhat darker scenario then is that whoever set off said chemical attack (and for what its worth this observer agrees with Peter Ford, the former UK ambassador to Syria interviewed tonight on Newsnight, who doesn't believe for a minute that the Syrian government had anything to do with it) intended it as a prelude to a wider war i.e. presumably an excuse for the US to send boots onto the ground in Syria.

Is this then the much hyped Trump plan to take out Isis etc, is he in fact looking for an excuse to send in his troops into Syria?

Again this is just speculation, but if this is what lies behind events then presumably a big consideration the Americans would have is to get some guarantee from Moscow that they will not attack any US troops entering Syria. Hence is that what this much hyped dramatic trip to Moscow is all about?

So what will Russia do? Anything could happen but I cannot see them backing down. The joint command in Syria, involving Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and presumably Syria itself, has already come out and clearly stated that the US are crossing their red lines. They are saying they will respond militarily to any other US attacks on Syria.

Presumably though any actual conflict between these parties would be confined to Syria, at least initially. I say that because surely anybody can see that a wider US-Russian war would be disastrous for everybody and that, with respect to conventional weapons at any rate, neither side is really ready for a wholesale conflict? The US couldn't realistically deploy sufficient troops to take out Russia even in the medium term never mind the short term, if at all? The few thousand that they have deployed in recent months around Russia's borders are clearly insufficient to launch any kind of real assault on Russia, you would have thought at any rate.

Well time will tell I guess...
 


Zapped(CAPITALISMROTS)

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
6,493
Twitter
daxxdrake
Rots has being busy studying prophetic animal entrails over the weekend, and is glad to report, that they indicate, as long as Barbie remains supreme leader of the Irish Nation the world will be safe from W.W 3....:rolleyes:
 

wexfordman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2006
Messages
7,760
Could all be a bluff either to make trump look tough on Russia.

That being.said,.I'm stocking up on.tons.of beans and bullets.

Might get a gun at some.stage
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,356
Something doesn't add up on the recent US cruise missile attack.
Officially the Russian air defense system did not engage or intercept.
Russia says only 23 missiles struck their target -maybe the remaining 36 missiles were electronically intercepted.
Planes flew out of the same airport the next day -so did the Americans really intend to smash the airport or to show off to Xi in China what a really big manhood Trump has?
Russia also says the missile attack takes weeks to plan in advance so the Sarin gas attack is just choreography for the mass media.
It is also notable that the only evidence to defend the strikes came from You Tube videos where one "doctor" cited as evidence is a known UK Jihadist and was tried in court in the UK for kidnapping journalists.
Doctor For Syrian Chemical Attack is a Jihadist From the U.K. (VIDEO)
We need to wait to see what the true nature of the missile strike was. The White House narrative on Syria is schizophrenic. So it is difficult to understand what is really happening.
 
Last edited:

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Simply put: Extremely doubtful.

Has the situation become far more dangerous? Yes.

Why? Because Russia has suspended the agreement to exchange flight information regarding flights over Syria. This increases the change of an accident or accidental confrontation which could possibly create a spiral of escalation.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416


While I don't wish to be alarmist are we sleep walking in the direction of a potential global conflict in the next few days, weeks?

To recap we have, especially since the fall of East Aleppo a few months ago, a Syrian government which is well on its way to defeating its Islamist insurgency and asserting control over the whole country. Then the chemical weapon incident occurs, the US claims to be ever so outraged, bombs Syria and, incredibly, now, as I write this, Tillerson, the US Secretary of State, after consulting the G7, seems to be sending some sort of ultimatum to the Russian government which is a step that often precedes war.

Ok so there are two possible scenarios being played out here it seems to me:

a) What we are being told is that this is a sudden change of heart - actually an incredibly surprising 180 degree turn - by the US President shocked and saddened by the loss of life to chemical weapons. Hence presumably under this scenario the missile strike will just be a once off, maybe accompanied by some small slap on the wrist type new sanctions and the world will return to its usual mostly peaceful chaos and nothing much happens. But the hype around this G7 meeting seems to presage some more fundamental change in US policy.

b) The somewhat darker scenario then is that whoever set off said chemical attack (and for what its worth this observer agrees with Peter Ford, the former UK ambassador to Syria interviewed tonight on Newsnight, who doesn't believe for a minute that the Syrian government had anything to do with it) intended it as a prelude to a wider war i.e. presumably an excuse for the US to send boots onto the ground in Syria.

Is this then the much hyped Trump plan to take out Isis etc, is he in fact looking for an excuse to send in his troops into Syria?

Again this is just speculation, but if this is what lies behind events then presumably a big consideration the Americans would have is to get some guarantee from Moscow that they will not attack any US troops entering Syria. Hence is that what this much hyped dramatic trip to Moscow is all about?

So what will Russia do? Anything could happen but I cannot see them backing down. The joint command in Syria, involving Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and presumably Syria itself, has already come out and clearly stated that the US are crossing their red lines. They are saying they will respond militarily to any other US attacks on Syria.

Presumably though any actual conflict between these parties would be confined to Syria, at least initially. I say that because surely anybody can see that a wider US-Russian war would be disastrous for everybody and that, with respect to conventional weapons at any rate, neither side is really ready for a wholesale conflict? The US couldn't realistically deploy sufficient troops to take out Russia even in the medium term never mind the short term, if at all? The few thousand that they have deployed in recent months around Russia's borders are clearly insufficient to launch any kind of real assault on Russia, you would have thought at any rate.

Well time will tell I guess...

Well, has the Left gone into rotation mighty quick.


Trump is a Russian puppet. Russia put Trump in the White House. They hacked absolutely everyone, they infiltrated the FBI, the fed lies about Hilary. Putin personally assisted Trump.

Clearly there is absolutely no threat of war with Russia. How could there be?
 

O'Quisling

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2012
Messages
738
While I don't wish to be alarmist are we sleep walking in the direction of a potential global conflict in the next few days, weeks? . . . . .

Ok so there are two possible scenarios being played out here it seems to me:

a) What we are being told is that this is a sudden change of heart - actually an incredibly surprising 180 degree turn - by the US President shocked and saddened by the loss of life to chemical weapons. Hence presumably under this scenario the missile strike will just be a once off, maybe accompanied by some small slap on the wrist type new sanctions and the world will return to its usual mostly peaceful chaos and nothing much happens. But the hype around this G7 meeting seems to presage some more fundamental change in US policy.

b) The somewhat darker scenario then is that whoever set off said chemical attack (and for what its worth this observer agrees with Peter Ford, the former UK ambassador to Syria interviewed tonight on Newsnight, who doesn't believe for a minute that the Syrian government had anything to do with it) intended it as a prelude to a wider war i.e. presumably an excuse for the US to send boots onto the ground in Syria.

Is this then the much hyped Trump plan to take out Isis etc, is he in fact looking for an excuse to send in his troops into Syria?
. . . .

So what will Russia do?

Presumably though any actual conflict between these parties would be confined to Syria, at least initially. . . . . . Well time will tell I guess...
The civil war in Syria has emerged as a mini-world war , with foreign fighters from at least 86 countries believed to be fighting there. The principal actors are Iraq, Iraqi Kurdistan, Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France, Qatar, United States, Jordan, Turkey, Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Jordan, UAE, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Georgia, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Austria, and Greece. Even the Hermit Kingdom is rumoured to have a presence on the battlefield. There are an alleged 11 to 15 North Korean officers (most of whom speak Arabic) assisting the Syrian military improve its missile capabilities. Given this level of international involvement it should not seem strange that the former Superpower of Russia should also be involved.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,415
Could all be a bluff either to make trump look tough on Russia.

That being.said,.I'm stocking up on.tons.of beans and bullets.

Might get a gun at some.stage
Bullets aside, you're on the right track.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,356
Even the Hermit Kingdom is rumoured to have a presence on the former Superpower of Russia should also be involved.
Shouldn't you be saying the former Superpower of the USSR?
Take the US out of NATO and Russia, with an economy the size of Italy could still crush Europe militarily in a matter of weeks.

Russia's new electronic weapons has everyone running scared. NATO is blind in Syria by satellite, radar and ground radio communication.
Russia may be relatively poor by size of economy but rich by size of its military and military equipment.
 

former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,565
b) The somewhat darker scenario then is that whoever set off said chemical attack (and for what its worth this observer agrees with Peter Ford, the former UK ambassador to Syria interviewed tonight on Newsnight, who doesn't believe for a minute that the Syrian government had anything to do with it) intended it as a prelude to a wider war i.e. presumably an excuse for the US to send boots onto the ground in Syria.
"Former ambassador", and now a lobbyist for Assad.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,907
I'll make one prediction, should there be a war between Russia and the USA it'll be short.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Shouldn't you be saying the former Superpower of the USSR?
Take the US out of NATO and Russia, with an economy the size of Italy could still crush Europe militarily in a matter of weeks.

Russia's new electronic weapons has everyone running scared. NATO is blind in Syria by satellite, radar and ground radio communication.
Russia may be relatively poor by size of economy but rich by size of its military and military equipment.
Even if that were true, by the end Moscow would still be a crater.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
While I don't wish to be alarmist are we sleep walking in the direction of a potential global conflict in the next few days, weeks?

Whilst I don't wish to be alarmist, but is an extinction-level meteor impact going to occur this Sunday?
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
While I don't wish to be alarmist are we sleep walking in the direction of a potential global conflict in the next few days, weeks?

Whilst I don't wish to be alarmist, allowing pubs to open on Good Friday could bring the end of western civilisation as we know it.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,907
Any sign of one of thos solar flare yokies they are going on about on the Chinese Robots thread?
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
I'll make one prediction, should there be a war between Russia and the USA it'll be short.
I've done a bit of research into this and its quite interesting. Back in the cold war the two sides had at least 40,000 nukes armed and ready to go - but that has reduced considerably in recent decades.

Today - the US and Russia only have around 700 armed and ready nuke missiles each, and they are smaller (lower yield) than before. Their missiles are old and we know the US ones are badly maintained due to budget cuts. The Russian ones are probably in the same situation. If a launch was ordered, how many would work? Hard to know. Half maybe.

And what are they pointed at? Supposedly the two sides stopped pointing their missiles at anything, so in case of war they would all need to be retargeted.

In backup, they have another 700 nukes each in storage and these would take several hours to arm and prepare.

Israel has around 300 nukes they say. China around 100 - similar to France.

A nuclear war in 2017 wouldn't wipe out humanity. It would be nuclear for the first 24 hours only, and then would probably continue as a normal war. Probably around 100 million dead. More people would die in the years after due to the damage done to infrastructure, food production and the medial industry.

The world would rebalance its economy away from the northern hemisphere in the decades after. 90% of humanity would be unaffected.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,356
Even if that were true, by the end Moscow would still be a crater.
The dead hand of Russia is well known. Should the US ever launch a pre-emptive strike at any moment, an annihilated Russia has monitoring systems in place to automatically launch Nuclear missiles on the US and Europe all while Moscow is a crisp.

So it would be delusional to attack Russia as the dead man has a hand ready to strike back.

The issue for the US and NATO is that Russia now has electronic technology to intercept and incapacitate the guidance systems of US missiles. The Russians even incapacitated a whole ship in the Black Sea- the USS Donald Cook. Have a look online. It makes for interesting reading.

AEGIS Fail in Black SEA, Ruskies Burn Down USS Donald “Duck” | Veterans Today

Russian Sukhoi Su -24 with the newest jamming complex paralyzed in the Black Sea the most modern American combat management system “Aegis” installed on the destroyer “USS Donald Cook”. Pavel Zolotarev, Deputy Director, Institute of USA and Canada, shares details about this version which is being actively discussed in the Russian media and by bloggers.

US destroyer “Donald Cook” with cruise missiles “Tomahawk” entered the neutral waters of the Black Sea on April 10. The purpose was a demonstration of force and intimidation in connection with the position of Russia in Ukraine and Crimea. The appearance of American warships in these waters is in contradiction of the Montreux Convention about the nature and duration of stay in the Black Sea by the military ships of countries not washed by this sea.

In response, Russia sent an unarmed bomber Su- 24 to fly around the U.S. destroyer. However, experts say that this plane was equipped with the latest Russian electronic warfare complex. According to this version, “Aegis” spotted from afar the approaching aircraft, and sounded alarm. Everything went normally, American radars calculated the speed of the approaching target. And suddenly all the screens went blank. “Aegis” was not working any more, and the rockets could not get target information. Meanwhile, Su-24 flew over the deck of the destroyer, did battle turn and simulated missile attack on the target. Then it turned and repeated the maneuver. And did so 12 times.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
I've done a bit of research into this and its quite interesting. Back in the cold war the two sides had at least 40,000 nukes armed and ready to go - but that has reduced considerably in recent decades.

Today - the US and Russia only have around 700 armed and ready nuke missiles each, and they are smaller (lower yield) than before. Their missiles are old and we know the US ones are badly maintained due to budget cuts. The Russian ones are probably in the same situation. If a launch was ordered, how many would work? Hard to know. Half maybe.

And what are they pointed at? Supposedly the two sides stopped pointing their missiles at anything, so in case of war they would all need to be retargeted.

In backup, they have another 700 nukes each in storage and these would take several hours to arm and prepare.

Israel has around 300 nukes they say. China around 100 - similar to France.

A nuclear war in 2017 wouldn't wipe out humanity. It would be nuclear for the first 24 hours only, and then would probably continue as a normal war. Probably around 100 million dead. More people would die in the years after due to the damage done to infrastructure, food production and the medial industry.

The world would rebalance its economy away from the northern hemisphere in the decades after. 90% of humanity would be unaffected.
This is tosh.


The US has 18 Ohio Class submarines with armament of 24 Trident missiles each. Each Trident missile has 8 independent warheads (of 100 - 475 kilotons for each warhead). That is 3,452 individually targetable nuclear warheads.

For reference the Little Boy Hiroshima bomb had a payload of 15 kilotons.


And I will bet you that these US submarines and their missiles and warheads are in tip top shape.

And that is before we get to surface or air-launched nuclear cruise missiles. There is ample deterrent - enough to send the world to hell in a hand basket, as there is from Russia as well.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top