Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7091
    Points : 7359
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:11 am

    Monarchist wrote:Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Russia will adhere to the position of partnership with the USA, despite the disagreements

    «Неправильно говорить: «Мы идем без вас». До конца будем говорить, что дверь открыта и мы должны работать вместе, потому что, когда ты делишь проблему на «свою» и «чужую», это путь в тупик. Несмотря на все наши разногласия с американцами, с Вашингтоном, несмотря на то, что два года каких только палок нам не вставляли и по Украине, и по другим вопросам, мы говорим и будем говорить: «Давайте работать вместе»», — заявила она.


    "It is wrong to say," We're going without you. "Until the end we will say that the door is open, and we must work together, because when you share a problem on "their" and "foreign" is the way to a standstill. Despite our differences with the Americans with Washington, despite the fact that two years which only sticks we have not inserted and Ukraine, and other issues, we say and we say: "Let's work together", "- she said.

    http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2015/10/18/n_7786943.shtml

    Laughing Laughing "Please like us, and work with us decendant west".. cry Rolling Eyes

    You are aware that this is the "good guy Russia" image, right? This is all simply about Russia giving the carrot on the stick to US. US wont do it as they have this anti Russian sentiment. Russia will continue to do what it will do in order to help Assad. They say all this stuff and you know just as well as I do that it is all talk to keep the masses in the west to keep their panties on. Have you ever noticed that Russia is still bombing US friends in Syria? As well, didn't you say that Russia abandoned Syria earlier and now you were proven wrong?
    Monarchist
    Monarchist

    Posts : 196
    Points : 194
    Join date : 2015-04-23
    Location : russiadefence.net

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Monarchist on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:30 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    Monarchist wrote:Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Russia will adhere to the position of partnership with the USA, despite the disagreements

    «Неправильно говорить: «Мы идем без вас». До конца будем говорить, что дверь открыта и мы должны работать вместе, потому что, когда ты делишь проблему на «свою» и «чужую», это путь в тупик. Несмотря на все наши разногласия с американцами, с Вашингтоном, несмотря на то, что два года каких только палок нам не вставляли и по Украине, и по другим вопросам, мы говорим и будем говорить: «Давайте работать вместе»», — заявила она.


    "It is wrong to say," We're going without you. "Until the end we will say that the door is open, and we must work together, because when you share a problem on "their" and "foreign" is the way to a standstill. Despite our differences with the Americans with Washington, despite the fact that two years which only sticks we have not inserted and Ukraine, and other issues, we say and we say: "Let's work together", "- she said.

    http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2015/10/18/n_7786943.shtml

    Laughing Laughing "Please like us, and work with us decendant west".. cry Rolling Eyes

    You are aware that this is the "good guy Russia" image, right?  This is all simply about Russia giving the carrot on the stick to US.  US wont do it as they have this anti Russian sentiment.  Russia will continue to do what it will do in order to help Assad.  They say all this stuff and you know just as well as I do that it is all talk to keep the masses in the west to keep their panties on.  Have you ever noticed that Russia is still bombing US friends in Syria?  As well, didn't you say that Russia abandoned Syria earlier and now you were proven wrong?
    You are aware that the "russian elite" (most of whom are not ethnic russians), oligarchs, politicians etc. keep their money in western banks, their daughters and sons study, live and work there, their money is invested in real estate and banks there. The russian economy is 80% in western off shore accounts. Russia and it's political and economic elite doesn't want a confrontation with the west, actually they envy the west, their system and Russia would never ever want an confontantion with the west. Why would they? Putin's daughters live and work in the west.

    Ps. Almost 2 weeks of bombing campaign and tell me what are these "great results" and achievement so far?
    Walther von Oldenburg
    Walther von Oldenburg

    Posts : 1113
    Points : 1180
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 28
    Location : Oldenburg

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:35 am

    ... capture of several villages in Aleppo countryside after years of stalemate, recapture of several towns in Hama, Latakia and Idlib? Rolling Eyes

    THE TIDE HAS TURNED - that is important. Airstrikes are working. Just today 3 hills were captured in Aleppo
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7091
    Points : 7359
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:40 am

    Monarchist wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:
    Monarchist wrote:Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Russia will adhere to the position of partnership with the USA, despite the disagreements

    «Неправильно говорить: «Мы идем без вас». До конца будем говорить, что дверь открыта и мы должны работать вместе, потому что, когда ты делишь проблему на «свою» и «чужую», это путь в тупик. Несмотря на все наши разногласия с американцами, с Вашингтоном, несмотря на то, что два года каких только палок нам не вставляли и по Украине, и по другим вопросам, мы говорим и будем говорить: «Давайте работать вместе»», — заявила она.


    "It is wrong to say," We're going without you. "Until the end we will say that the door is open, and we must work together, because when you share a problem on "their" and "foreign" is the way to a standstill. Despite our differences with the Americans with Washington, despite the fact that two years which only sticks we have not inserted and Ukraine, and other issues, we say and we say: "Let's work together", "- she said.

    http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2015/10/18/n_7786943.shtml

    Laughing Laughing "Please like us, and work with us decendant west".. cry Rolling Eyes

    You are aware that this is the "good guy Russia" image, right?  This is all simply about Russia giving the carrot on the stick to US.  US wont do it as they have this anti Russian sentiment.  Russia will continue to do what it will do in order to help Assad.  They say all this stuff and you know just as well as I do that it is all talk to keep the masses in the west to keep their panties on.  Have you ever noticed that Russia is still bombing US friends in Syria?  As well, didn't you say that Russia abandoned Syria earlier and now you were proven wrong?
    You are aware that the "russian elite" (most of whom are not ethnic russians), oligarchs, politicians etc. keep their money in western banks, their daughters and sons study, live and work there, their money is invested in real estate and banks there. The russian economy is 80% in western off shore accounts. Russia and it's political and economic elite doesn't want a confrontation with the west, actually they envy the west, their system and Russia would never ever want an confontantion with the west. Why would they? Putin's daughters live and work in the west.

    Ps. Almost 2 weeks of bombing campaign and tell me what are these "great results" and achievement so far?

    Do you have any official data and evidence of your claims? This one as well?
    80% in western off shore accounts
    avatar
    Karl Haushofer

    Posts : 733
    Points : 726
    Join date : 2015-05-03

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Karl Haushofer on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:42 am

    At least at some point both Putin's and Lavrov's children were living in the West. I don't know if that's the case anymore.
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7091
    Points : 7359
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:43 am

    Karl Haushofer wrote:At least at some point both Putin's and Lavrov's children were living in the West. I don't know if that's the case anymore.

    And?  Kim Jong Un studied in Switzerland (or sweeden).  Sucks they didn't study at home, but that makes no fricking difference.

    Plus, we need actual evidence of such a thing. You are aware the backlash that would cause in Russia? Especially since many people and businessmen are sanctioned from entering the west? Which seems to escape both you and your friend Monarchist.


    Last edited by sepheronx on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:47 am; edited 1 time in total
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  max steel on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:46 am

    monarchist don't write strawman arguments.
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7091
    Points : 7359
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:48 am

    Monarchist wrote:The russian economy is 80% in western off shore accounts. Russia and it's political and economic elite doesn't want a confrontation with the west, actually they envy the west, their system and Russia would never ever want an confontantion with the west. Why would they? Putin's daughters live and work in the west.

    As well, are you aware of the blacklisting of various businessmen, businesses and institutions banned from the west? I think you seem to have forgotten that.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5264
    Points : 5417
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:00 am

    We were right, Western media fails yet again! Here's the final nail in the coffin about the alleged cruise missiles crashing in Iran. Apparently the Western Presstitute claims that '4' of the '26' cruise missiles crashing in Iran were not informed, supported, or backed by any U.S. military intelligence reports. John Kirby, the Spokesman for the United States Department of State said no intelligence report could confirm the malfunctioning crash landing of the cruise missiles in Iran:

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Pentagon_Press_Secretary_Navy_Rear_Adm._John_Kirby_briefs_reporters_at_the_Pentagon,_March_27,_2014_140327-D-NI589-064



    QUESTION: Well, since you started with the call, let’s start there. Did – well, there are officials at the Pentagon who are telling various news agencies that several – four of perhaps 26 cruise missiles that the Russians fired from the Caspian towards Syria actually landed in Iran. Are you guys confident enough about that to say it on the record?

    MR KIRBY: No, I’m afraid – I mean, I’ve seen those reports but I’m not in a position to confirm them at this time.


    And this:



    QUESTION: Right, but something like this happening would not be technically part of de-confliction talks, would it?

    MR KIRBY: You mean if it’s true that --

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MR KIRBY: -- a couple of their cruise missiles landed in Iran? Again, I’m not going to get into greater detail on the call, but I think if something like that happened – again, I can’t confirm it, but I think it points all the more towards the need to have proper de-confliction procedures in place.


    John Kirby Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC October 8, 2015
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5252
    Points : 5455
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:01 am

    Even tho he exegerattes he has a point. It is politically a no go to have kids nor money to be abroad. Kids recieve usually from Western ivy schools also a brainwashing aswell money being used as for blackmailing to betray their countries. It should be banned by law for any official to allow such things, especially money and letting kids study in specific schools which are prone to drive the US political propaganda or are known for political headhunting. I am not talking about normal schools but ideology abusing schools like Yale,Harward and others.
    Kyo
    Kyo

    Posts : 498
    Points : 545
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 70
    Location : Brasilia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Kyo on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:07 am

    Erk wrote:
    Kyo wrote:
    Erk wrote:
    Kyo wrote:

    Moscow should tell the Americans they can't have it both ways: either you effectively bomb IS in Syria or you get the hell out of the country's airspace.
     The US coalition did 800 strikes per day back in 2003 against Iraq, more than 10 times what Russia are currently doing in Syria. If the Americas only want to do 14 strikes per day in Syria, it's not because they can't do better that's for sure. America is happy playing it's world domination games, and would simply use a statement like that from Russia for propaganda.

    Else, what will Russia do about Syrian airspace interdiction when all terrorists are wiped out?

    When the jihadists are wiped out, then the US wont need to be there will they.
    Clearly, US' aim is to remove Assad from office, not to wipe out all jihadists.
    avatar
    ultron

    Posts : 588
    Points : 569
    Join date : 2015-09-18

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  ultron on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:18 am

    Russia says if the Syrian army cannot take a single town within 4 months, then that means the Syrian people don't even care about their own country and are not willing to sacrifice like the Allies did in WW2, and that means Russia will no longer give air support to the Syrian army and the Syrian army can screw it because if Syrians don't even care about their own country then why should Russia care.

    http://tass.ru/en/politics/829942
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  max steel on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:25 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    .




    Russia is Proving Why Nuclear-Tipped Cruise Missiles Are a Very Bad Idea

    Those four cruise missiles that crashed in Iran could’ve been carrying nuclear warheads — which is why the US should ban them, not renew them.



    When Russia this month launched 26 cruise missiles from ships in the Caspian Sea into Syria, more than 900 miles away, the missiles had to pass over Iran and Iraq. Four crashed in Iran. According to reports, a number of cows were killed in the ensuing blast.

    Apologies to the cows, but this could have been a lot worse. Earlier CNN quoted 2 anonymous general saying few buildings were destroyed in Iran and might have killed few people but now US media spun it again saying it killed few sheep/cows.

    The Russian cruise missiles, the Kalibr-NK, were armed with conventional warheads. But these missiles are also capable of carrying nuclear warheads. That’s a problem. Cruise missile attacks are inherently ambiguous and can add major risks to a crisis. Had the target been the United States, military leaders would not have known until impact if it was a nuclear attack. This kind of uncertainty can increase the risk of nuclear war and it’s why nuclear-tipped cruise missiles should banned completely.

    Cruise missiles are unreliable. In the case of Moscow’s attack into Syria, if nuclear warheads had been involved and some of them crashed in Iran without detonating (which is likely), Tehran could have retrieved them. This scenario is not as far fetched as one might think. In 2007, six nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly loaded onto a B-52 bomber and flown across the United States. Because nuclear-armed cruise missiles are virtually indistinguishable from conventional ones, the error went undetected for 36 hours. If this can happen under strict American guidelines, imagine what could happen from Russia to the Middle East.

    Just ask the father of the U.S. nuclear-armed, aircraft-launched cruise missile, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry. He agrees they should be banned. Perry oversaw development of the current air-launched nuclear cruise missile 35 years ago, and recently penned a Washington Post op-ed with his colleague, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Andy Weber. They call the cruise missile a “uniquely destabilizing” weapon, because the intended target has no way of knowing if it is under nuclear or conventional attack.

    As Perry and Weber point out, this fact was not lost on Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev who banned all ground-based cruise missiles under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush unilaterally ordered all sea-launched Tomahawk nuclear cruise missiles taken off surface ships and attack submarines. The only U.S. nuclear cruise missile left is the air-launched version, carried by B-52 bombers.

    Similarly, the United Kingdom rejected sea-based nuclear cruise missiles in 2013. Foreign Minister Philip Hammond argued that, “A cruise-based deterrent would carry significant risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation.” The uncertainty posed by these weapons, he said, “could risk triggering a nuclear war at a time of tension.”

    So why is the U.S. Air Force planning to spend $20 billion to build approximately 1,000 new nuclear-armed Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, or ALCMs, with refreshed warheads, to replace its current fleet? It should not. Not only are they “uniquely destabilizing” but their mission has evaporated.

    As Perry and Weber explain, nuclear cruise missiles were initially conceived to keep the B-52 flying until it could be replaced by the stealthier B-2 bomber. During the Vietnam War, many B-52s were lost to enemy surface-to-air defenses making it painfully obvious that the plane was no longer able to safely operate in contested airspace. But with the cruise missile, the B-52 could still strike targets deep in the heart of enemy territory. This feature was deemed necessary during the Cold War so NATO could offset the Warsaw Pact’s larger conventional forces.

    That was then. As Perry and Weber write, such a Cold War posture “no longer reflects the reality of today’s U.S. conventional military dominance.”

    In fact, the ALCM was supposed to be retired long ago along with the B-52 bomber when the B-2 came on line. After all, there is no need for a penetrating cruise missile on a penetrating bomber. But in the 1980’s Congress cut plans for the B-2 from 132 to 75, and then the Berlin Wall fell. In 1992, Bush cut B-2 production to 20. Thus there were not enough B-2s to replace the B-52, only supplement it. So the B-52 and the ALCM are still with us today.

    But this is more by accident than by design. Once the Air Force gets its new B-3 penetrating bombers and a revitalized B61 nuclear bomb, there will be no need for the ALCM. And there is certainly no need to build a new ALCM now.

    President Obama can safely cancel the new nuclear cruise missile and challenge other nations, like Russia, to eliminate these destabilizing weapons. This step would save tens of billions of dollars, reduce the risk of nuclear war and provide momentum toward Obama’s goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. And, ironically, it would eliminate yet another potential pathway for Iran to get the bomb.


    Last edited by max steel on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:43 am; edited 2 times in total
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  max steel on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:40 am

    ultron wrote:Russia says if the Syrian army cannot take a single town within 4 months, then that means the Syrian people don't even care about their own country and are not willing to sacrifice like the Allies did in WW2, and that means Russia will no longer give air support to the Syrian army and the Syrian army can screw it because if Syrians don't even care about their own country then why should Russia care.

    http://tass.ru/en/politics/829942

    I don't think his personal thoughts/opinion reflects Russia's commitment to Syria because if Russia backs out in next 2 months then people will loose hope.
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7091
    Points : 7359
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:44 am

    max steel wrote:
    ultron wrote:Russia says if the Syrian army cannot take a single town within 4 months, then that means the Syrian people don't even care about their own country and are not willing to sacrifice like the Allies did in WW2, and that means Russia will no longer give air support to the Syrian army and the Syrian army can screw it because if Syrians don't even care about their own country then why should Russia care.

    http://tass.ru/en/politics/829942

    I don't think his personal thoughts/opinion reflects Russia's commitment to Syria because if Russia backs out in next 2 months then people will loose hope.

    This is exactly what the article says:
    GENEVA, October 19. /TASS/. Russia’s operation in Syria will not be lingering, and its time limits will depend on the results of the fight against terrorists, speaker of Russia’s Federation Council Valentina Matviyenko told a news conference on Monday.

    "We do not think that the air force operations will last long, their time limits will be defined by the results of the fight against Islamic State [a terrorist group banned in Russia -TASS] and international terrorism. It is crucial to deal the final blow to this world’s evil in its lair, preventing the spread of Islamic State and international terrorist groups to other countries, other regions, including Russia," she noted.

    Russia’s Aerospace Forces launched surgical strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria on September 30. The military operation is conducted at the request of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Russian air group in Syria comprises more than 50 warplanes and helicopters, including Su-34 and Su-24M bombers and Su-25 fighter bombers and Su-30SM fighters. On October 7, four missile ships of the Russian Navy’s Caspian Flotilla fired 26 Kalibr cruise missiles (NATO codename Sizzler) at militants’ facilities in Syria. On October 8, the Syrian army passed to a large-scale offensive. The Russian Federation does not plan to take part in ground operations in Syria.

    Ultron is making up things regarding the article. Adding his own narrative.

    I am reporting him.
    Kyo
    Kyo

    Posts : 498
    Points : 545
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 70
    Location : Brasilia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Kyo on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:51 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    max steel wrote:
    ultron wrote:Russia says if the Syrian army cannot take a single town within 4 months, then that means the Syrian people don't even care about their own country and are not willing to sacrifice like the Allies did in WW2, and that means Russia will no longer give air support to the Syrian army and the Syrian army can screw it because if Syrians don't even care about their own country then why should Russia care.

    http://tass.ru/en/politics/829942

    I don't think his personal thoughts/opinion reflects Russia's commitment to Syria because if Russia backs out in next 2 months then people will loose hope.

    This is exactly what the article says:
    GENEVA, October 19. /TASS/. Russia’s operation in Syria will not be lingering, and its time limits will depend on the results of the fight against terrorists, speaker of Russia’s Federation Council Valentina Matviyenko told a news conference on Monday.

    "We do not think that the air force operations will last long, their time limits will be defined by the results of the fight against Islamic State [a terrorist group banned in Russia -TASS] and international terrorism. It is crucial to deal the final blow to this world’s evil in its lair, preventing the spread of Islamic State and international terrorist groups to other countries, other regions, including Russia," she noted.

    Russia’s Aerospace Forces launched surgical strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria on September 30. The military operation is conducted at the request of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Russian air group in Syria comprises more than 50 warplanes and helicopters, including Su-34 and Su-24M bombers and Su-25 fighter bombers and Su-30SM fighters. On October 7, four missile ships of the Russian Navy’s Caspian Flotilla fired 26 Kalibr cruise missiles (NATO codename Sizzler) at militants’ facilities in Syria. On October 8, the Syrian army passed to a large-scale offensive. The Russian Federation does not plan to take part in ground operations in Syria.

    Ultron is making up things regarding the article.  Adding his own narrative.

    I am reporting him.
    +1 to you, Sepheronx
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5264
    Points : 5417
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:51 am

    max steel wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:We were right, Western media fails yet again! Here's the final nail in the coffin about the alleged cruise missiles crashing in Iran. Apparently the Western Presstitute claims that '4' of the '26' cruise missiles crashing in Iran were not informed, supported, or backed by any U.S. military intelligence reports. John Kirby, the Spokesman for the United States Department of State said no intelligence report could confirm the malfunctioning crash landing of the cruise missiles in Iran:



    QUESTION: Well, since you started with the call, let’s start there. Did – well, there are officials at the Pentagon who are telling various news agencies that several – four of perhaps 26 cruise missiles that the Russians fired from the Caspian towards Syria actually landed in Iran. Are you guys confident enough about that to say it on the record?

    MR KIRBY: No, I’m afraid – I mean, I’ve seen those reports but I’m not in a position to confirm them at this time.


    And this:



    QUESTION: Right, but something like this happening would not be technically part of de-confliction talks, would it?

    MR KIRBY: You mean if it’s true that --

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MR KIRBY: -- a couple of their cruise missiles landed in Iran? Again, I’m not going to get into greater detail on the call, but I think if something like that happened – again, I can’t confirm it, but I think it points all the more towards the need to have proper de-confliction procedures in place.


    John Kirby Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC October 8, 2015




    Then read this

    The point that I'm trying to make is the media assertions were not actually backed by any intelligence report, plus using 'Anonymous' as a source is quite tricky, considering that person has problems with alcoholism... Wink
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  max steel on Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:57 am

    It's quiet relevant not related to your post completely but partially it does.


    US is spinning cruise missiles lie and now saying US should not encourage Russia to go for Nuclear tipped cruise missiles and convince them to ban it because an american useful idiot thinks they are unreliable. Ha! Like Russia will listen to them. Razz
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7091
    Points : 7359
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:02 am

    They are still talking about that BS report on the so called crashed cruise missiles? The ones never proven, and somehow has same so called failure rate to the 1999 cruise missile failure rate from US noted in an article? Yeah, funny how the general couldn't comment on it.
    Kyo
    Kyo

    Posts : 498
    Points : 545
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 70
    Location : Brasilia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Kyo on Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:06 am

    max steel wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    .




    Russia is Proving Why Nuclear-Tipped Cruise Missiles Are a Very Bad Idea

    Those four cruise missiles that crashed in Iran could’ve been carrying nuclear warheads — which is why the US should ban them, not renew them.



    When Russia this month launched 26 cruise missiles from ships in the Caspian Sea into Syria, more than 900 miles away, the missiles had to pass over Iran and Iraq. Four crashed in Iran. According to reports, a number of cows were killed in the ensuing blast.

    Apologies to the cows, but this could have been a lot worse. Earlier CNN quoted 2 anonymous general saying few buildings were destroyed in Iran and might have killed few people but now US media spun it again saying it killed few sheep/cows.

    The Russian cruise missiles, the Kalibr-NK, were armed with conventional warheads. But these missiles are also capable of carrying nuclear warheads. That’s a problem. Cruise missile attacks are inherently ambiguous and can add major risks to a crisis. Had the target been the United States, military leaders would not have known until impact if it was a nuclear attack. This kind of uncertainty can increase the risk of nuclear war and it’s why nuclear-tipped cruise missiles should banned completely.

    Cruise missiles are unreliable. In the case of Moscow’s attack into Syria, if nuclear warheads had been involved and some of them crashed in Iran without detonating (which is likely), Tehran could have retrieved them. This scenario is not as far fetched as one might think. In 2007, six nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly loaded onto a B-52 bomber and flown across the United States. Because nuclear-armed cruise missiles are virtually indistinguishable from conventional ones, the error went undetected for 36 hours. If this can happen under strict American guidelines, imagine what could happen from Russia to the Middle East.

    Just ask the father of the U.S. nuclear-armed, aircraft-launched cruise missile, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry. He agrees they should be banned. Perry oversaw development of the current air-launched nuclear cruise missile 35 years ago, and recently penned a Washington Post op-ed with his colleague, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Andy Weber. They call the cruise missile a “uniquely destabilizing” weapon, because the intended target has no way of knowing if it is under nuclear or conventional attack.

    As Perry and Weber point out, this fact was not lost on Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev who banned all ground-based cruise missiles under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush unilaterally ordered all sea-launched Tomahawk nuclear cruise missiles taken off surface ships and attack submarines. The only U.S. nuclear cruise missile left is the air-launched version, carried by B-52 bombers.

    Similarly, the United Kingdom rejected sea-based nuclear cruise missiles in 2013. Foreign Minister Philip Hammond argued that, “A cruise-based deterrent would carry significant risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation.” The uncertainty posed by these weapons, he said, “could risk triggering a nuclear war at a time of tension.”

    So why is the U.S. Air Force planning to spend $20 billion to build approximately 1,000 new nuclear-armed Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, or ALCMs, with refreshed warheads, to replace its current fleet? It should not. Not only are they “uniquely destabilizing” but their mission has evaporated.

    As Perry and Weber explain, nuclear cruise missiles were initially conceived to keep the B-52 flying until it could be replaced by the stealthier B-2 bomber. During the Vietnam War, many B-52s were lost to enemy surface-to-air defenses making it painfully obvious that the plane was no longer able to safely operate in contested airspace. But with the cruise missile, the B-52 could still strike targets deep in the heart of enemy territory. This feature was deemed necessary during the Cold War so NATO could offset the Warsaw Pact’s larger conventional forces.

    That was then. As Perry and Weber write, such a Cold War posture “no longer reflects the reality of today’s U.S. conventional military dominance.”

    In fact, the ALCM was supposed to be retired long ago along with the B-52 bomber when the B-2 came on line. After all, there is no need for a penetrating cruise missile on a penetrating bomber. But in the 1980’s Congress cut plans for the B-2 from 132 to 75, and then the Berlin Wall fell. In 1992, Bush cut B-2 production to 20. Thus there were not enough B-2s to replace the B-52, only supplement it. So the B-52 and the ALCM are still with us today.

    But this is more by accident than by design. Once the Air Force gets its new B-3 penetrating bombers and a revitalized B61 nuclear bomb, there will be no need for the ALCM. And there is certainly no need to build a new ALCM now.

    President Obama can safely cancel the new nuclear cruise missile and challenge other nations, like Russia, to eliminate these destabilizing weapons. This step would save tens of billions of dollars, reduce the risk of nuclear war and provide momentum toward Obama’s goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. And, ironically, it would eliminate yet another potential pathway for Iran to get the bomb.
    Had those 4 Kalibrs fallen in India and killed those unfortunate cows, Russia would have undergone a criminal lawsuit and religiously condemned.
    max steel
    max steel

    Posts : 2939
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  max steel on Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:12 am

    Hahahah! It is even more funny because I'm from India or some pigs in Iraq/Iran. Laughing
    sepheronx
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7091
    Points : 7359
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 30
    Location : Canada

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:12 am

    Kyo wrote:
    max steel wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    .




    Russia is Proving Why Nuclear-Tipped Cruise Missiles Are a Very Bad Idea

    Those four cruise missiles that crashed in Iran could’ve been carrying nuclear warheads — which is why the US should ban them, not renew them.



    When Russia this month launched 26 cruise missiles from ships in the Caspian Sea into Syria, more than 900 miles away, the missiles had to pass over Iran and Iraq. Four crashed in Iran. According to reports, a number of cows were killed in the ensuing blast.

    Apologies to the cows, but this could have been a lot worse. Earlier CNN quoted 2 anonymous general saying few buildings were destroyed in Iran and might have killed few people but now US media spun it again saying it killed few sheep/cows.

    The Russian cruise missiles, the Kalibr-NK, were armed with conventional warheads. But these missiles are also capable of carrying nuclear warheads. That’s a problem. Cruise missile attacks are inherently ambiguous and can add major risks to a crisis. Had the target been the United States, military leaders would not have known until impact if it was a nuclear attack. This kind of uncertainty can increase the risk of nuclear war and it’s why nuclear-tipped cruise missiles should banned completely.

    Cruise missiles are unreliable. In the case of Moscow’s attack into Syria, if nuclear warheads had been involved and some of them crashed in Iran without detonating (which is likely), Tehran could have retrieved them. This scenario is not as far fetched as one might think. In 2007, six nuclear-armed cruise missiles were mistakenly loaded onto a B-52 bomber and flown across the United States. Because nuclear-armed cruise missiles are virtually indistinguishable from conventional ones, the error went undetected for 36 hours. If this can happen under strict American guidelines, imagine what could happen from Russia to the Middle East.

    Just ask the father of the U.S. nuclear-armed, aircraft-launched cruise missile, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry. He agrees they should be banned. Perry oversaw development of the current air-launched nuclear cruise missile 35 years ago, and recently penned a Washington Post op-ed with his colleague, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Andy Weber. They call the cruise missile a “uniquely destabilizing” weapon, because the intended target has no way of knowing if it is under nuclear or conventional attack.

    As Perry and Weber point out, this fact was not lost on Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev who banned all ground-based cruise missiles under the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush unilaterally ordered all sea-launched Tomahawk nuclear cruise missiles taken off surface ships and attack submarines. The only U.S. nuclear cruise missile left is the air-launched version, carried by B-52 bombers.

    Similarly, the United Kingdom rejected sea-based nuclear cruise missiles in 2013. Foreign Minister Philip Hammond argued that, “A cruise-based deterrent would carry significant risk of miscalculation and unintended escalation.” The uncertainty posed by these weapons, he said, “could risk triggering a nuclear war at a time of tension.”

    So why is the U.S. Air Force planning to spend $20 billion to build approximately 1,000 new nuclear-armed Air-Launched Cruise Missiles, or ALCMs, with refreshed warheads, to replace its current fleet? It should not. Not only are they “uniquely destabilizing” but their mission has evaporated.

    As Perry and Weber explain, nuclear cruise missiles were initially conceived to keep the B-52 flying until it could be replaced by the stealthier B-2 bomber. During the Vietnam War, many B-52s were lost to enemy surface-to-air defenses making it painfully obvious that the plane was no longer able to safely operate in contested airspace. But with the cruise missile, the B-52 could still strike targets deep in the heart of enemy territory. This feature was deemed necessary during the Cold War so NATO could offset the Warsaw Pact’s larger conventional forces.

    That was then. As Perry and Weber write, such a Cold War posture “no longer reflects the reality of today’s U.S. conventional military dominance.”

    In fact, the ALCM was supposed to be retired long ago along with the B-52 bomber when the B-2 came on line. After all, there is no need for a penetrating cruise missile on a penetrating bomber. But in the 1980’s Congress cut plans for the B-2 from 132 to 75, and then the Berlin Wall fell. In 1992, Bush cut B-2 production to 20. Thus there were not enough B-2s to replace the B-52, only supplement it. So the B-52 and the ALCM are still with us today.

    But this is more by accident than by design. Once the Air Force gets its new B-3 penetrating bombers and a revitalized B61 nuclear bomb, there will be no need for the ALCM. And there is certainly no need to build a new ALCM now.

    President Obama can safely cancel the new nuclear cruise missile and challenge other nations, like Russia, to eliminate these destabilizing weapons. This step would save tens of billions of dollars, reduce the risk of nuclear war and provide momentum toward Obama’s goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. And, ironically, it would eliminate yet another potential pathway for Iran to get the bomb.
    Had those 4 Kalibrs fallen in India and killed those unfortunate cows, Russia would have undergone a criminal lawsuit and religiously condemned.

    Wasn't real. Never happened. Noticed how they claim first it killed people then it went to cows and sheep? As well, 26 cruise missiles. Failure rate of 15% means 3.9 or 4 failed missiles: http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/apr/30/balkans6

    Do the math and you will figure out where they came up with the number of failed cruise missiles.
    Kyo
    Kyo

    Posts : 498
    Points : 545
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 70
    Location : Brasilia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Kyo on Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:32 am

    max steel wrote:Hahahah! It is even more funny because I'm from India or some pigs in Iraq/Iran. Laughing
    Then ban all cruise missiles, nuclear and conventional.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 5264
    Points : 5417
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:20 am

    sepheronx wrote:They are still talking about that BS report on the so called crashed cruise missiles?  The ones never proven, and somehow has same so called failure rate to the 1999 cruise missile failure rate from US noted in an article?  Yeah, funny how the general couldn't comment on it.

    What's also interesting is if you re-read the quotes, you'll notice how the Presstitute was pressing hard for a confirmation to feed the Russophobic hyena's, and in the second quote you can tell Admiral Kirby was getting annoyed, like "Why are you pestering me with this non-issue?" Razz He even also follows up with "A couple of their cruise missiles landed in Iran?", notice how he say's a 'couple' (aka '2') as opposed to '4', followed by a question mark. So yeah, he's heard of the reports but himself and his superiors, briefer's, aides, and intelligence assets weren't interested in the reports enough to remember the exact number pulled straight from the Prestitute asses lol! Go figure!!! Rolling Eyes Razz lol1
    Kyo
    Kyo

    Posts : 498
    Points : 545
    Join date : 2014-11-03
    Age : 70
    Location : Brasilia

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Kyo on Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:21 am

    The positive side of the Kalibrs falling in Iran and killing those unfortunate cows is that at least Iranian peasants passing by should have enjoyed a gorgeous barbecue smell for quite a while, making them salivate as hungry wolves on a snowy steppe.

    Sponsored content

    Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3 - Page 23 Empty Re: Russian military intervention and aid to Syria #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:57 am