US shoots down Syrian warplane

[Thor]

Two state solution. We do Assad and the Palestinians get Syria for a homeland (Israel gets Israel). Behind closed doors we make clear that what the US giveth the US can take away so develop your new country, lay off the struggle - you lost

That's not going to work unless we demonstrate some real old testament outcomes for them. See Afghanistan, they've been fighting there over trivial scheist since before Alexander. The Brits had the same issues after WWI, they built a series of forts within mutual support distance of each other along the entire silk road and it was only constant warfare. If they do not understand that messing with us will bring a deity like area wide retribution that will kill their entire family tree they will not stop.

They are willing to blow themselves up over trivial gains or nearly pointless points. We need Pershing like solutions. We need to be able to say I'm happy to work with you and make your life better, or I'm happy to come and kill everyone you ever knew and bury you in a pit of pigs; your choice.

 

[Thor]

Well, since T.Lex has lit the thread-jack lamp, I guess I can jump in here:

During the First Gulf War, an F-15E shot down an Iraqi helicopter with a laser-guided bomb. The helicopter had been on the ground loading troops, and took off before the bomb reached it. The F-15E kept its laser on the helicopter and the bomb intercepted it at about 200 feet off the ground.

Back to your regularly scheduled program. Whatever it was.

Did it even fuse on the chopper? Not that it would have mattered after it punched a JDAM sized hole through it.

 

[Alamo]

... a JDAM sized hole through it.

Various sources say it was a GBU-10, which is a Mk-84 2000lb dumb bomb educated a bit with control wings and laser seeker. Yes, would not have mattered if it detonated or not.

 

[Trigger Time]

Does anyone else think that war with Russia is inevitable? They have to know there is no win for them to come of it so why are they doing what they are doing? Do they think we will not reapond Just like Obama failed to do for 8 years? I'm really trying to understand what they are thinking.

 

[T.Lex]

For me, Russia-first or China-first is a REALLY difficult question.

As in most inter-war periods, our doctrine hasn't correctly identified the nature of the next conflict. We've been training and organizing for guerilla conflicts, when the risks of a conventional state v. state war are growing.

I've reached a zen of threadjacking. It doesn't matter anymore.

BTW, a helo shot down an enemy plane (an An-2) during the Vietnam war.

 

[Trigger Time]

For me, Russia-first or China-first is a REALLY difficult question.

As in most inter-war periods, our doctrine hasn't correctly identified the nature of the next conflict. We've been training and organizing for guerilla conflicts, when the risks of a conventional state v. state war are growing.

I've reached a zen of threadjacking. It doesn't matter anymore.

BTW, a helo shot down an enemy plane (an An-2) during the Vietnam war.

agreed. China probably relies on us more than Russia but I don't think either one is a good nation. Kinda like Saudi Arabia .

 

[Kutnupe14]

I just don't understand why we are interfering in Syria. It's moronic. Feels like a proxy war we're slowly being dragged into.

 

[T.Lex]

I just don't understand why we are interfering in Syria. It's moronic. Feels like a proxy war we're slowly being dragged into.

You are totally wrong. We're there because of Daesh.

And its a proxy war that we're being dragged into.

 

[Trigger Time]

I just don't understand why we are interfering in Syria. It's moronic. Feels like a proxy war we're slowly being dragged into.

killing Isis. We should call obama and ask him why he took us there. He may have a different answer but I think that's why Trump has us there.
asaad should be dead, but I don't think that's our business, but killing isis should be a priority

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are totally wrong. We're there because of Daesh.

And its a proxy war that we're being dragged into.

Lol. I'm reminded of Watto in this instance. "I'm Toydarian, mind tricks don't work on me. Only money."

 

[Kutnupe14]

killing Isis. We should call obama and ask him why he took us there. He may have a different answer but I think that's why Trump has us there.
asaad should be dead, but I don't think that's our business, but killing isis should be a priority

Because he was dumb, and made a bad decision, just like in Libya.

 

[Trigger Time]

Because he was dumb

well yeah I've been telling you that forever lol

 

[BugI02]

For me, Russia-first or China-first is a REALLY difficult question.

As in most inter-war periods, our doctrine hasn't correctly identified the nature of the next conflict. We've been training and organizing for guerilla conflicts, when the risks of a conventional state v. state war are growing.

I've reached a zen of threadjacking. It doesn't matter anymore.

BTW, a helo shot down an enemy plane (an An-2) during the Vietnam war.

I'm thinking China first. Some aspects of the 'relationship' kind of feel like the US/Imperial Japan dynamic from the 30s - dynamic young empire/hegemon feeling like 'The Man' (Uncle Sam) is keeping them down

 

[T.Lex]

I'm thinking China first. Some aspects of the 'relationship' kind of feel like the US/Imperial Japan dynamic from the 30s - dynamic young empire/hegemon feeling like 'The Man' (Uncle Sam) is keeping them down

I agree with the notion that there are parallels. The biggest difference, though, IMHO, is that China doesn't want or need a war. If there's a war with China, it'll be on her terms - which doesn't bode well for us.

Russia is less inclined to play the long game, which makes that war more likely in the near term.

And no, I wouldn't have staked a different position if you'd gone the other way.

But, in a few months/weeks/days, something might change the paradigm. That's why I think its a difficult question - the facts surrounding it keep changing.

 

[Thor]

In Syria the tail is wagging the dog; and America is the dog.

Putin has already gotten what he wants out of this, proof that his weapons work as designed and experience for his military, including their first ever combat sorties from an aircraft carrier, and two bases in the Med. He has no real commitment to Assad other than he's currently the only face of the Syrian government. I'm fairly certain that he does not want to fight us in Syria; I'm also fairly certain that he would not be afraid to. Now that he has shown the world that his toys go boom he can't step back from an open challenge and keep that credibility. Of course he pushes that button he may lose that credibility anyway.

The Iranian medium range ICBM strike was not necessarily a response to the IS terror attack in Iran (which was conducted by internal factions) but was, according to the spokesman for the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps "The Saudis and Americans are especially receivers of this message" and "The bigger slap is yet to come". Iran does not intend to let us craft the end game in the Syrian civil war.

Assad is pushing to have a 'road to Iran' through Iraq and wants the US supported Syrian fighters and their advisors out of the way before the IS falls.

Our 'allies' in the area are too weak to survive more than a few days on their own and rely on us to stop the Syrian attacks with air power. The requirement to defend these proxies is pulling us deeper into the conflict. And now that we are publicly taking a larger role it will difficult to not try to have a hand in the outcome. The problem is that this involvement was started so badly, and the either complete lack of planning or disingenuous intentions, that we are in the midst of a rolling cluster schtoup and coming up with a winning end game will be almost impossible.

The destruction of the Islamic(P'toui) State is now the prelude to a civil war that may become a general regional conflict.

 

[Thor]

China's actions in the South China Sea and it's law that makes it a capital offense for any Chinese official to ever step back from a claim of sovereignty means that as we try to enforce the Law of the Sea we are pushing back on their claims of sovereignty. A miss step here is highly possible.

The last time we had 3 aircraft carriers in the area was in '97 when China was going to invade Taiwan for daring to suggest they might be independent of the mainland. The 3 that are there now are ostensibly for the crazy NorKs but this is yet another proxy war issue.

Who will we go to war with first? I don't know, 50/50 and maybe both.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't think Syria would be considered valuable military experience for Russia. Well, maybe it is, but it's hardly adequate for a military of their size. They are essentially dropping bombs on an unorganized rabble, with no true surface to air defensive capabilities... And when have encountered a nation with such tools, it hasn't turned out well.

 

[T.Lex]

Both would be bad.

Really bad.

 

[Thor]

I don't think Syria would be considered valuable military experience for Russia. Well, maybe it is, but it's hardly adequate for a military of their size. They are essentially dropping bombs on an unorganized rabble, with no true surface to air defensive capabilities... And when have encountered a nation with such tools, it hasn't turned out well.

I agree it's not adequate but during his annual call in session: “It has done enormous good for our defense industry…. The use of cutting-edge weapons has allowed us to understand how they work under combat conditions and to make required adjustments in the quality of these advanced weapons systems. But we knew for sure they are good weapons.” Combined with this, the experience acquired by the Russian army in Syria, is “priceless”, Putin said.

 

[NKBJ]

There are times that it just looks like a Punch & Judy show with one set of scaly hands.