Syria: How could Assad potentially respond militarily to Cruise Missile strikes?

Be like Nutella

Now that there seems to be a strike on Assad coming soon does anyone here have any idea as to whether Assad can shoot down Tomahawks? or could he conceivably fire on US warships in the med etc? any opinions? could he stop a cruise missile attack at all? would he be mad enough to hit a ship/could be successfully hit one with what he's got?

Also anybody know how many targets the US would likely try and hit? how long it could take? Could they take out the chemical sites without huge risk?

some people really know their weapons round here so just lookin for any input..

Local-womanizer

I don't think anything is going to happen very soon. It's not a matter of whether Assad can respond and return the damage. The big issue is how the Russians will react to any action on Syria from the west.

Be like Nutella

I know that I was just asking for any knowledgeable opinions on Assad's ability to react or respond to a cruise missile attack. A 4 star gen on the news this evening mentioned an attack could possibly be as short as two nights in duration but he never mentioned whether Assad could take out one of their ships.... so I assume he hasn't got the ability, even with the alleged Russian anti ship missiles... hence the questions..

But on the Russian issue - how could they react? They'll veto any UN efforts but apart form that what could they do? Supply Assad with the anti ship missiles and other weapons? Counter any efforts with the Iranians, sure they do that anyway.. what will they do?

maquiladora

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I know that I was just asking for any knowledgeable opinions on Assad's ability to react or respond to a cruise missile attack. A 4 star gen on the news this evening mentioned an attack could possibly be as short as two nights in duration but he never mentioned whether Assad could take out one of their ships.... so I assume he hasn't got the ability, even with the alleged Russian anti ship missiles... hence the questions..

But on the Russian issue - how could they react? They'll veto any UN efforts but apart form that what could they do? Supply Assad with the anti ship missiles and other weapons? Counter any efforts with the Iranians, sure they do that anyway.. what will they do?

There won't be any UN vote, pointless since Russia and probably China would veto it.

My guess is that it would be a 1-2 day operation probably exclusively with ship/submarine launched cruise missiles. A limited operation, striking a limited number of targets.

I can't see Russia doing anything more than protesting loudly. What else could they do, really?

Earlier this year Russia did supply Assad with P-800 anti-ship cruise missiles, and last month they were allegedly hit in an Israeli airstrike.

It's hard to know with the civil war going on what systems and capabilities Assad still has access to.

The smartest thing for Assad to do would probably be to absorb the limited attack and do nothing. He did nothing after Israel bombed the reactor in 2007 and after other alleged operations because he knows that striking back at Israel could be suicidal. Striking back at the US/UK etc. could turn a limited operation into an unlimited one.

It's tough to know exacly how it will all pan out though.

Be like Nutella

so I guess the big issue is whether Israel are confident they got those P-800s in that strike or whether Russia did supply more anti ship missiles since then as some are reporting..

I think what you're saying about him just sitting back and absorbing a strike makes sense on one hand to avoid as you say a ltd strike operation turning into an unlimited operation which he'd lose,

but,

he will still now suffer the loss of most of his air power if they do hit his 6 main airfields and his 50 or so usable jets and I wouldn't say he planned that type of loss of power if/when he ordered this nerve gas massacre. If he did order the massacre then he has severely miscalculated the international response which I firmly believe will be this cruise/airstrike operation at some point in the next couple weeks.

Apparently the US would only need 24 aircraft (f-15's/f-18's) and 3 ships and all cruise missiles could be fired from outside of Syrian territory putting no US lives at risk.

This plan is quite specific and was leaked recently.

http://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf

maquiladora

Be like Nutella wrote: »

so I guess the big issue is whether Israel are confident they got those P-800s in that strike or whether Russia did supply more anti ship missiles since then as some are reporting..

I think what you're saying about him just sitting back and absorbing a strike makes sense on one hand to avoid as you say a ltd strike operation turning into an unlimited operation which he'd lose,

but,

he will still now suffer the loss of most of his air power if they do hit his 6 main airfields and his 50 or so usable jets and I wouldn't say he planned that type of loss of power if/when he ordered this nerve gas massacre. If he did order the massacre then he has severely miscalculated the international response which I firmly believe will be this cruise/airstrike operation at some point in the next couple weeks.

Apparently the US would only need 24 aircraft (f-15's/f-18's) and 3 ships and all cruise missiles could be fired from outside of Syrian territory putting no US lives at risk.

This plan is quite specific and was leaked recently.

http://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf

I think it will probably be quite limited, a dozen or less targets. I don't think they are going to go after his entire air force, more like command and control sites, rocket/missile units and the headquarters of whatever unit they believe fired the chemical weapons etc. A one or two night operation.

As to when, the timescale will be days not weeks. I'd expect it to happen sometime between this Wednesday and next Monday.

kravmaga

Be like Nutella wrote: »

so I guess the big issue is whether Israel are confident they got those P-800s in that strike or whether Russia did supply more anti ship missiles since then as some are reporting..

I think what you're saying about him just sitting back and absorbing a strike makes sense on one hand to avoid as you say a ltd strike operation turning into an unlimited operation which he'd lose,

but,

he will still now suffer the loss of most of his air power if they do hit his 6 main airfields and his 50 or so usable jets and I wouldn't say he planned that type of loss of power if/when he ordered this nerve gas massacre. If he did order the massacre then he has severely miscalculated the international response which I firmly believe will be this cruise/airstrike operation at some point in the next couple weeks.

Apparently the US would only need 24 aircraft (f-15's/f-18's) and 3 ships and all cruise missiles could be fired from outside of Syrian territory putting no US lives at risk.

This plan is quite specific and was leaked recently.

http://understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/RequiredSorties-to-DegradeSyrianAirPower.pdf

US Navy have now 4 destroyers in the region, me thinks something is going to happen very soon

roadmaster

How good are these p-800's? Would they get through western defences?

maquiladora

roadmaster wrote: »

How good are these p-800's? Would they get through western defences?

http://defense-update.com/20100920_yakhont_in_syria.html

From 2010.

roadmaster

maquiladora wrote: »

http://defense-update.com/20100920_yakhont_in_syria.html

From 2010.

From reading that article from my non military eye would i be correct in saying them missles are useless without su 27 jets or radar aircraft for land based launches since i presume any uk/us/french ships will be well of the coast they will be safe enoght?

IRLConor

roadmaster wrote: »

How good are these p-800's? Would they get through western defences?

Isn't it moot anyway? They've a range of ~160nm and the US vessels can just stand off and shoot Tomahawks (~1,000nm range) and launch F/A-18s (~400nm combat radius unrefuelled, more with refuelling) without putting themselves in harm's way.

maquiladora

Cameron is recalling parliament for a vote on Thursday.

Be like Nutella

So I'm assuming the P-800s are a null point (IF Assad has any left) because any so called 'surgical strike' will simply involve a stand off distance of 200+ Miles and they are rated to 160 as was said.

The Stealth Bombers in Trieste could be used for large gravity bombs to crater runways on those 6 main airfields better than would Cruise Strikes which would not sufficiently degrade those large concrete runways. Would those Stealth B2s be completely out of harms way over 10,000 feet a la Kosovo protocol?

Will the US now go to the UN and go through this theatrical process in order to gain international public support while at the same time highlight Russian and Chinese lack of compassion siding with Assad ending with no clear resolution for a strike? and instead use his use of chemical weapons as a cause to protect international laws of conflict/Geneva Conventions?

Although I agree that the use of chemical weapons needs to be reacted to with force, in every instance, the sheer hypocrisy of standing up for laws of conflict in this instance while shredding thousands of Pakistani hill tribes family members in Waziristan from behind an unacceptable wall of unaccountability is sickening to the stomach.

Also if they are going to try and sell this strike as a reaction to the use of chemical weapons then one would think it would be necessary to prove that this impending operation will actually degrade or diminish Assad's ability to use his chemical stocks in the future, especially seeing as he is, going to pay the price for it already and so is somewhat disposed to using them en masse again during an internal civil war which he knows the west is simply not going to get involved in numbers on the ground. Basically if they do it it has to demonstrably reduce his ability to use chem weapons again because it's their only play if they're not going to roll in.

Lastly, if Cruise missiles don't pack enough umf to destroy underground chemical stores at these locations then one would have to think M.O.P.s on retrofitted stealth B2s will be called upon and there certainly are not many of those. I don't see any other penetrating weapon on the menu which would assure destruction of reinforced storage sites below 30 feet underground. The Inst for the Study of War leaked plan does not deal with destroying underground storage of chemical weapons adequately. Which bomb? which platform? Also the longer they wait to strike surely the more counter measures Assad will take further reducing the likelihood of mission accomplishment.

Jonny7

More mentions in the press of a 2 day strike

Syrian government forces must be preparing for this. If it happens, I presume the US/EU will hit aircraft, runways, helicopters and possibly some command and control centres.

Unlikely to significantly affect Syrian forces - more like a severe slap on the wrist

Sierra Oscar

A lot depends on whether Syria has actually taken delivery of the S-300 missile system from Russia. If they have then they would be capable of targeting warships. There is a lot of confusion surrounding this though. Assad himself claimed earlier in the summer that the SAA had taken delivery of the missile system, but Putin at the time denied that the contract had been fulfilled in full but that it would be in due course. Now Russia, as of yesterday, are claiming that all contracts with Syria are on track - which should mean that Syria has taken delivery of a S-300 battery. There have also been indications that Russian technicians have been on the ground to provide training in the use of a S-300 battery in the future.

It could very well be the case that western intelligence feels that Syria does not have the S-300 yet, but will take delivery soon, and accordingly now is their time to act without suffering heavily causality wise for their actions.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Syrian government forces must be preparing for this.

Definitely. Reports last night were that army units were ordered to leave their bases and spread out to minimize the potential for strikes to cause damage.

Jonny7

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

A lot depends on whether Syria has actually taken delivery of the S-300 missile system from Russia. If they have then they would be capable of targeting warships.

I don't believe they have the system yet, it's slated to arrive 2014 and 6 months training required on top of that.

When the Israeli's called Putin to protest, he told them that if they were so worried they could purchase the system instead.

maquiladora

Jonny7 wrote: »

More mentions in the press of a 2 day strike

Syrian government forces must be preparing for this. If it happens, I presume the US/EU will hit aircraft, runways, helicopters and possibly some command and control centres.

Unlikely to significantly affect Syrian forces - more like a severe slap on the wrist

There may not be any aircraft involved at all in combat roles. Probably just cruise missiles from US ships and a UK submarine. Maybe the B-2 if a target requires a different type of warhead. But they could easily skip those targets since this would be a limited strike and not the start of an all out air war.

They will have aircraft on standby in the region and ready to deploy quickly from elsewhere if the situation escalates though.

Be like Nutella

Jonny7 wrote: »

he told them that if they were so worried they could purchase the system instead.

If Tom Clancy invented Putin as a character in one of his books you couldn't take him seriously.

Ok so if we were to put money on it Assad hasn't got the anti ship missiles ready to go - yet - hence now is the time to strike because if he hasn't got them at this point then the Russians response could be to really give them to him no matter who barks about it. If it's a money thing - how much are we talking? a hundred million or two? Just offer to pay them off

Last thing you want is Assad (or somebody else there) to have these missiles right now.

So what weapon could hit buried or hardened chemical sites successfully?

Could they/would they use the M.O.P. from Stealths (apparently there are a few retrofitted for just that) OR even the MOAB ?

coolemon

Syria would have the capability of defending itself against cruise missile attacks. For example the Syrian SA missile and autocannon system which shot down the Turkish fighter last year is also capable of targeting cruise missiles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir-S1

Key Syrian installations will be protected and surrounded by 'close in' missile and autocannon systems like this. These usually have a high resolution short range radar which automatically prepares and fires the weapon when the target comes in range. The autocannon would have flak and shrapnel type rounds to increase a hit on an incoming missile. These systems are what naval ships use to defend against anti-ship missiles, like with US ships use of the Phalanx - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

The US regime will try and overwhelm the tracking systems of these defensive weapons by launching dozens of cruise missiles at any one time. Or perhaps distract them with decoy missiles.

Many of the the longer ranged Syrian anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles would have missile intercept capabilities too, but would be more suited to engaging a ship or aircraft than a swarm of oncoming guided missiles. Long range defensive missiles would also be more sparse on the ground and more costly to replenish. Rather than being used they may remain static, defended by the cheaper and more easily replenished close-in weapons systems.

I dont think the Syrian military would have a retaliatory capability.

Be like Nutella

Pantsir-S1

Syria: 36 to 50 on order;[23] signed 2006 as part of arms package worth about US$ 1 billion;[24] deliveries began in August 2007; Jane's Defence Weekly reported in May 2007 that 50 systems are on order by Damascus and that at least ten of those Pantsirs would be handed over to Iran by the end of 2008. According to Jane's Defence Weekly, Iran is reported to be the main sponsor of the deal and is paying Syria for its services as intermediary. Deliveries to Iran are categorically denied by a range of top Russian officials including First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov.

Aerial targets include everything with a minimum radar-cross-section of 1 cm2 and speeds up to a maximum of 1300 metre/second within a maximum range of 20,000 metres and heights up to 15,000 metres—including all types of aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles and air-to-ground precision guided weapons. The system is able to defend against stealth aircraft,[4] and has capability for anti-munitions missions.

Autocannon

Two dual 2A38M 30 mm autocannon guns are fitted with 700 rounds of a variety of ammunition—HE (High Explosive) fragmentation, fragmentation tracer, and armour-piercing with tracer. Ammunition type can be selected by the crew depending on the nature of the target. Maximum rate of fire is 2,500 rounds per minute per gun. Range is up to 4 km. The combined gun-missile system has an extremely low altitude engagement capability (targets as low as 0 m AGL can be engaged by this system).

Wheeled combat vehicles have to be jacked up to keep the machine in the horizontal position and be able to fire the gun. The KAMAZ-6560 has four oil hydraulic jacks for this purpose.

Gun:

Designation: 2A38M
Type: twin-barrel automatic anti-aircraft gun
Calibre: 30 mm
Maximum rate of fire: 2,500 rounds per minute per gun
Muzzle velocity: 960 m/s
Projectile weight: 0.97 kg
Ammunition: 700 rounds per gun
Minimum range: 0.2 m
Maximum range: 4 km
Minimum altitude: 0 m AGL
Maximum altitude: 3 km

Be like Nutella

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jtISoEpaxg

coolemon

^^^

This is why the US regime like to use cluster weapons to overwhelm these defensive systems. Expect to see children being maimed from picking up brightly coloured balls for years to come after they attack.

maquiladora

It will be very interesting to see what Assad does/doesn't do.

It's one thing not to strike back when being hit by a surprise one off air strike that can be covered up or not even acknowledged. But it's a whole other ballgame to sit on your hands for 2/3 days while some of your most important military sites and assets get blown to pieces in strike after strike that are not at all secret and already anticipated and the talk of the streets in Damascus.

Larbre34

Unfortunately as Assad will never see the whites of the eyes of the allies attack, he will take it out on the rebels even more fiercely. It had better be a seriously crippling target package.

maquiladora

NYT article : http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

- Won't attack chemical weapons sites.
- Target list is fewer than 50 sites (some argue to expand it a bit).
- Targets include air bases, command sites and military units.
- Focusing solely on using sea-launched cruise missiles.

Be like Nutella

Sounds like they're just going to wack his bases as a warning not to go chemical again on the basis that they can't guarantee their destruction and chem sites are simply too risky to mess with if you're talking a cruise missile strike alone. They might be right.

Pity there isn't a clever weapon which could neutralize a chem stock site from the air without risking lives. If they're buried deep then a cruise strike wouldn't do the job anyway. In fact word is even the biggest ground penetrating weapons are over hyped over rated, too big/too heavy, too expensive.

hmmm

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

which should mean that Syria has taken delivery of a S-300 battery.

I doubt it. The Israeli's have struck Syria a few times since this started in order to take out advanced weaponry (4 times I think), at least once to take out a convoy of SA-17s and also more recently a warehouse full of Yakhont anti-ship missiles. They'd be all over a S-300 consignment as it is their number one strategic threat with civilian airliners over Israel being at risk if it became operational.

The Americans will fire in a few cruise missiles and destroy some empty buildings. They might even try taking out the air force. They'll certainly want to help their Jordanian trained force in the South, but I doubt they've decided whether they can be sure of the consequences if they assist the rebels in the North.

Be like Nutella

hmmm wrote: »

They might even try taking out the air force.

I think they could do and they will and that would be a massive blow to Assad's position.

Could even cause defections?

Assad's forces need to be hurt badly for massacring those people in their sleep - if it was Assad's forces who did it. I'm the first to bash America since Cheney's lies but I'd support smashing up his air force as a response to what he has probably done. I'd prefer they also neutralized the chemical sites if that was doable in a safe manner.

maquiladora

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I think they could do and they will and that would be a massive blow to Assad's position.

Could even cause defections?

Assad's forces need to be hurt badly for massacring those people in their sleep - if it was Assad's forces who did it. I'm the first to bash America since Cheney's lies but I'd support smashing up his air force as a response to what he has probably done. I'd prefer they also neutralized the chemical sites if that was doable in a safe manner.

Every leak is saying that the chemical sites won't be targets because it isn't possible to safely take then out from the air, certainly not with 1,000lb cruise missile warheads.

The leaks could be disinformation of course, who knows, maybe there is something to those stories about the US and Jordan training a special task force to go into Syria and secure the chemical weapons.

In other news, the Syrian Electronic Army has just hacked the New York Times website.

Be like Nutella

Richard Haas Pres of the CFR hinted at a possible 24-48 hour time frame in a media call today, as in an attack in the next 24-48 hours.. seems too rushed to me. To do the U.N. theater, get blocked by the Russians and maybe Chinese and then raise a coalition of the willing? Although It is going to be physically US operation (with possible help from a British sub mostly for PR purposes) and the Americans have lost all faith in the U.N. at this point and John Kerry pointed towards Obama not being held back by any bureaucratic timeline so maybe they'll just go ahead and do it who knows. Obama did cancel his meeting with the Russians and the U.N. team seem like they'll be a while completing their end of things so..

maquiladora

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Richard Haas Pres of the CFR hinted at a possible 24-48 hour time frame in a media call today, as in an attack in the next 24-48 hours.. seems too rushed to me. To do the U.N. theater, get blocked by the Russians and maybe Chinese and then raise a coalition of the willing? Although It is going to be physically US operation (with possible help from a British sub mostly for PR purposes) and the Americans have lost all faith in the U.N. at this point and John Kerry pointed towards Obama not being held back by any bureaucratic timeline so maybe they'll just go ahead and do it who knows. Obama did cancel his meeting with the Russians and the U.N. team seem like they'll be a while completing their end of things so..

Nothing will happen until after the vote on Cameron's motion in the House of Commons on Thursday. There won't be any UN theater for this, they'll cite it as a Grave Breach of the Geneva Convention and say it was impossible to act through the UN etc.

Everything that is required for a US/UK cruise missile strike is already there and waiting for the order. Thursday night or Friday night look likely to me. 1-3 days of strikes and then over before the G20 summit next week.

Sierra Oscar

hmmm wrote: »

I doubt it. The Israeli's have struck Syria a few times since this started in order to take out advanced weaponry (4 times I think), at least once to take out a convoy of SA-17s and also more recently a warehouse full of Yakhont anti-ship missiles. They'd be all over a S-300 consignment as it is their number one strategic threat with civilian airliners over Israel being at risk if it became operational.

Israel would be very brave to strike a S-300 battery whilst being delivered by Russia, or while Russian technicians were overseeing the transition of the weapon from Russian to Syrian hands after delivery as is part of the contract.

c-90

maquiladora wrote: »

NYT article : http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

- Won't attack chemical weapons sites.
- Target list is fewer than 50 sites (some argue to expand it a bit).
- Targets include air bases, command sites and military units.
- Focusing solely on using sea-launched cruise missiles.

May aswell give them coordinates and timings too if this is correct.

c-90

maquiladora wrote: »

NYT article : http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

- Won't attack chemical weapons sites.
- Target list is fewer than 50 sites (some argue to expand it a bit).
- Targets include air bases, command sites and military units.
- Focusing solely on using sea-launched cruise missiles.

May aswell give them coordinates and timings too if this is correct.

maquiladora

c-90 wrote: »

May aswell give them coordinates and timings too if this is correct.

There is actually a theory going around a lot of this is being leaked in advance in the hope that Assad will know that it's just a limited operation and therefore won't retaliate in the region.

Be like Nutella

makes sense

I'd be wary of an asymmetric response... terrorism

positron

If I may post something slightly tin foil hatish, US will strike targets in Syria that will hurt Iran most than anyone else. IMHO, Syria is only a scapegoat, or a step towards "taming" Iran. Why now? Because Iran is planning to deal oil in non-USD currencies. Last major oil country who tried this was Iraq under Saddam.

maquiladora

They actually are going to do the UN theater today afterall. UK to present a resolution later today. There's more chance of Putin getting married to Obama than that passing.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/syria-uk-to-put-forward-united-nations-security-council-resolution

Be like Nutella

If there's always a proxy interest in one party or another in global situations and if it's always impossible to find and present conclusive evidence during a civil war about who did this attack or that attack then how can the U.N. be useful in this scenario apart form to show up who is acting the a$$holes - in this case Russia and maybe China.

All that ends up happening just as in this case is that International law is decided on by one single party - in this case Russia - and who thinks Russia should be deciding that?

The convention is very simple, it says you can't use chemical weapons ever under any circumstances - it's overwhelmingly likely that Assad's forces did, whether he ordered it or not doesn't matter - so they need to take action against him - separate to tilting the balance in favor of the rebel side. This is about protecting a vitally important global norm to keep others from using chemical weapons and it's not negotiable.

I think they need to go as far as hitting his air force and command and control sites.... and then later be also committed to doing something/anything about the chemical sites.

IF Assad begins an all-out massacre on his own people killing tens of thousands of civilians, essentially genocide, then the world needs to come together and do something about it for sure. But for now this is about the chemical attack.

What Obama is committing himself to IMO:

1 Obama is committed to this cruise missile attack now. Has to happen no going back.
2 He is also committing himself to securing or destroying those chemical stocks IF it seems Assad will use them i.e. if there is major movement of them to load them into scuds etc etc as unlikely as anything else Assad has done!
3 I think he is also committing himself to stepping in on behalf of Syrian civilians IF Assad begins genocidal massacre of Syrian civilians and by 'stepping in' I mean raising a coalition of the willing, doing the U.N. thing properly and then taking down Assad with a full invasion.

There is no 100% control now from Obama's point of view. That train has left the station.

Depending on what Assad does this could go all the way. I hope it doesn't but if Assad is slipping into desperation mode and if he is going to fight to the death then his military actions are likely to reflect that psychology of 'do anything to survive' and as the rebels receive more and more arms, better arms, possibly even shoulder fired rockets and make any gains then it is easy to see this thing eventually going all the way which begs the question - What can the US do after the Cruise Strike to avoid being pulled into a full invasion further down the road as Assad acts more and more desperate in the civil war?

Do you let them kill each other for years and reduce each others forces as has been bandied about in the media? Pretty harsh stuff but that's the Realist approach being talked about.

Do you keep arms supply to soft non-lethal options as they 'say' they've been doing... even though there are many reports of arms coming into Syria from Gulf partners with the aid of US 'Advisers' in Jordan etc so this is not entirely true. It's all semantic BS at this stage. Not a tenable position anymore. If the US aren't giving lethal aid then the Gulf Partners are anyway.

Do you give them shoulder fired rockets which could really turn things up in the civil war allowing them to take out tanks and armoured vehicles and road blocks..... in enough number could really change things. It would result in massive bloodshed and genuinely could result in an AQ affiliated group getting their hands on shoulder fired weapons which could take out an airliner somewhere in the middle east... or turn up beside an airport in the US by way of Mexico. At least this is the argument anyway.

There is major risk involved in this Cruise Missile attack but I think it is necessary and justified. There's always risk in every military operation. Calm heads in the countries surrounding Syria is what is required - Russia and Israel especially.

Jonny7

positron wrote: »

If I may post something slightly tin foil hatish, US will strike targets in Syria that will hurt Iran most than anyone else. IMHO, Syria is only a scapegoat, or a step towards "taming" Iran. Why now? Because Iran is planning to deal oil in non-USD currencies. Last major oil country who tried this was Iraq under Saddam.

I'm not sure what they could strike in Syria that would affect Iran.

The Iranian oil bourse has apparently been trading in other currencies for over a year and a half now.

Tensions with Iran have decreased with the election of moderate Rouhani and the Israelis are relatively more relaxed on the Iranian nuclear program

positron

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm not sure what they could strike in Syria that would affect Iran.

Provoke a reaction from Iran perhaps? Like I said it's only a tin-foil-hat-ish theory, and I believe in next 5 years or so there will be a Western / West-led conflict against Iran, and this appears to me like a strategic step in that direction.

Be like Nutella wrote: »

it's overwhelmingly likely that Assad's forces did, whether he ordered it or not doesn't matter - so they need to take action against him -

I too agree that there should be action against who ever deployed the chemical weapons. However should everyone not follow whatever due course of action to actually confirm who ordered / used the chemical weapons? There are suggestions that Saudi Arabia is supporting and arming the rebels, and Saudi certainly has their own chemical weapons stockpile and it's plausible that they and rebels staged this to provoke a reaction from rest of the world. Asad's position on the civil war hadn't significantly deteriorated in last month or so, so would he be thick enough to use chemical weapons fully knowing that it will probably trigger a reaction from the West? There are the questions that's bugging me at the moment - and the whole Colin Powell with anthrax bottle in UN security council image is still fresh in our memories...!

maquiladora

Rumors again that Jordanian special forces are on alert on the Syrian border and prepared for an order to secure the chemical weapons sites. Sounds a little bit too Tom Clancy to me, but who knows.

All of Israel's anti-missile units have been put on alert now. Patriot, Arrow II, Iron Dome, everything. The cabinet there has approved a limited call up of reservists in air defence units this morning. So they are taking the threat of Assad hitting them in retaliation for a Western missile strike seriously.

cerastes

maquiladora wrote: »

Rumors again that Jordanian special forces are on alert on the Syrian border and prepared for an order to secure the chemical weapons sites. Sounds a little bit too Tom Clancy to me, but who knows.

All of Israel's anti-missile units have been put on alert now. Patriot, Arrow II, Iron Dome, everything. The cabinet there has approved a limited call up of reservists in air defence units this morning. So they are taking the threat of Assad hitting them in retaliation for a Western missile strike seriously.

If that was the case, any weapons would surely be in the ccontrol or secured by something more than regular troops or conscripts?

Even if they can determine chemical weapons were used from soil, plant or tissue samples, I cant see how they could determine who released any chemical weapons, what if all the weapons arent secured?

Sarin keeps coming up too, but the images I saw, showed people effectively having survived, according to wiki and from what Ive heard previously, Sarin is a neuro toxin and affects the nervous system, Im suprised anyone subjected to Sarin (wiki says its 500 times more toxic than cyanide) and the LD-50 in mice is according to wiki, in the microgramme range, I didnt think there would be survivors in anyone receiving a dose.

Be like Nutella

The liquid Sarin attack in Tokyo in '95 injured more than 1000 people but only killed 13. Most suffered vision and breathing issues.The delivery method is a big deciding factor on how lethal the attack ultimately is.

cerastes

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The liquid Sarin attack in Tokyo in '95 injured more than 1000 people but only killed 13. Most suffered vision and breathing issues.The delivery method is a big deciding factor on how lethal the attack ultimately is.

what was the delivery method, assuming it is chemical weapons,
artillery/rocket/aircraft
It must be known what the Syrian means are and if such were operating or operable on the day within range.

In fact given the harshness of criticism of some nations, you'd think they didnt stock such weapons themselves, I cant understand why anyone has chemical weapons, maybe its the poor mans nuke programme or just more rapidly attainable. If its a deterrent then its all out if you're attacked, you then have the option on the table to use them.

Im trying to imagine if any nation pre-emptively attacked israel to prevent it developing or acquiring advanced (non wmd) weapons, what the response would be.
I cant see the advantage of Syria using the weapons as it would only bring condemnation, it seems suspicious, if its correct the national army was gaining the upperhand, then the desperation to use such a weapon isnt there.

maquiladora

cerastes wrote: »

If that was the case, any weapons would surely be in the ccontrol or secured by something more than regular troops or conscripts?

I'd presume so.

cerastes wrote: »

Even if they can determine chemical weapons were used from soil, plant or tissue samples, I cant see how they could determine who released any chemical weapons, what if all the weapons arent secured?

The UN inspectors don't have a mandate to assign responsibility, only to investigate to confirm if those weapons were used.

cerastes wrote: »

Sarin keeps coming up too, but the images I saw, showed people effectively having survived, according to wiki and from what Ive heard previously, Sarin is a neuro toxin and affects the nervous system, Im suprised anyone subjected to Sarin (wiki says its 500 times more toxic than cyanide) and the LD-50 in mice is according to wiki, in the microgramme range, I didnt think there would be survivors in anyone receiving a dose.

Doctors Without Borders who are dealing with the victims on the ground there confirmed hundreds of cases of neurological symptoms, so clearly some type of chemical weapon or gas was used. I haven't seen anyone officially claiming it was Sarin in particular.
Assad's forces are known to have chemical weapons, they are known to have probably used them already in the conflict on a smaller scale. Assad's forces heavily shelled the site of the chemical attack in the days after it happened - why on earth would they do that unless they were trying to destroy as much evidence as possible at the site? Not the actions of an innocent party, a party that has been killing 10,000's over the past 2 years by conventional means like firing heavy artillery and Scud missiles into cities without any regard for civilian life.

maquiladora

cerastes wrote: »

what was the delivery method, assuming it is chemical weapons,
artillery/rocket/aircraft
It must be known what the Syrian means are and if such were operating or operable on the day within range.

In fact given the harshness of criticism of some nations, you'd think they didnt stock such weapons themselves, I cant understand why anyone has chemical weapons, maybe its the poor mans nuke programme or just more rapidly attainable. If its a deterrent then its all out if you're attacked, you then have the option on the table to use them.

Im trying to imagine if any nation pre-emptively attacked israel to prevent it developing or acquiring advanced (non wmd) weapons, what the response would be.
I cant see the advantage of Syria using the weapons as it would only bring condemnation, it seems suspicious, if its correct the national army was gaining the upperhand, then the desperation to use such a weapon isnt there.

Syria's chemical weapons were mostly likely developed as a deterrent against Israel (or other potential attackers) since Syria doesn't have it's own nuclear program. Poor man's nuclear weapon is a good way of describing it.

I don't think Assad cares all that much about condemnation to be honest. As I said above, for the past couple of years his forces have been using heavy conventional weapons against civilian areas and the world has barely batted an eyelid. He may have felt emboldened knowing he has a cast iron veto at the UN from Russia (and possibly China) no matter what happened, may have gambled that Obama was bluffing about his "red line", especially since nothing happened after the small scale use of chemical weapons earlier.

It's also possible that the forces that fired those rockets aimed them at the wrong part of the city, or thought it was less populated and wouldn't result in such a large event. Who knows, it's hard to think about rationality when these same forces have used conventional weapons with abandon on densely populated cities.

cerastes

I cant understand why there isnt as serious an effort to peacefully reduce and eventually dispose of all biological and chemical weapons compared to the attention of nuclear weapons.
If anything comes of this I'd hope its something of the above.

It sounds like either some insurgent group released something or some local level of the Syrian army released this without authority I cant see the Syrian government officially authorising it, it would surely be known to them to be the end of the regime and what some countries require to become involved, unless they really are that desperate or foolish.
Maybe the shelling is an effort to cover the later if its the case, although indiscriminate shelling does seem par for this conflict.

Be like Nutella

Moon is saying the inspectors need 4 more days. But they won't point to who did it anyway so.. what will they eventually say?

There was a chemical attack
Hundreds died
It was a nerve gas of some sort
It involved many rockets
It happened in a place where the state forces were pushing rebels out of

the US has already said it is sure Assad's forces are responsible already and that it won't allow Russia to dictate international law by vetoing the U.N. resolution necessary to take legal military action.

Whoever conducted the attack broke international law,
whoever is going to punish them for it will have to it seems.

Sierra Oscar

It is looking increasingly likely that there will be no military intervention until after the weekend. David Cameron is running into some serious problems trying to justify intervention to the public, and the Labour party opposing his Commons motion is a big setback.

I can't see the US going ahead with intervention without the support of Britain.

wildfowler94

Irish troops arrive in Syrias Golan Heights on sunday and the UN arms inspectors leave on sunday, any strike will be from Sunday night onwards, possible that it will be mid week