Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 138

Thread: Syrian government using chemical weapons?

  1. #31
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Can it also be lethal to small numbers of people?
    A cannon shell from a battleship can kill hundreds of people or just one. Depends on whether you're shelling a crowded town and hitting a skyscraper, bringing it down - or a lone house on a beach where only one person lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    As Khend says, the binary delivery system is a safety precaution engineered to protect the people employing sarin, to help prevent accidental exposure.
    I wouldn't call it "engineered", that sounds like Sarin was somehow altered to provide this property. It's rather that the final production step is so reactive that you can use it to produce Sarin on the fly (thus making it a binary agent). But that's nitpicking.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Syria, unlike Libya, actually has decent air defenses. A consequence of Israeli-Syrian hostility. And unlike the attack on Iraq, we haven't spend a decade stomping all over those defenses.
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Depends on how you define achievable. If we wanted to do it, we would require two or three carriers. They aren't available at the moment. We have one within range right now but it's tasked with actively supporting the troops we have on the ground in southern Afghanistan. That's not a mission it can be drawn away from. We have one carrier on the East Coast which can probably be deployed in fairly short order if we wanted to (it was supposed to go to the Mediterranean back in February but the budget analysts said no) and another which is in the tail-end of refit and recovery after a deployment. It's still not ready to go out again. There is a third carrier which is projected to rejoin the fleet sometime this year after a multi-year overhaul in Newport but it's nowhere near ready to be deployed.

    The fleet has been reoriented toward the Pacific over the last few years. 's why there's only one carrier deployed somewhere else right now. If we wanted to take shots at Syrian airspace it would take us at least two months just to get carriers in position after we decided to do something absent a serious emergency and it would be politically and monetarily expensive. I don't see us doing anything while we're also being very firm with North Korea. I also don't know just how Russia would feel about any serious intervention. Libya had been very isolated, an international pariah, for years before first Europe and then we decided to get involved in support of their particular application of the "Arab Spring."

    I agree with you on the substance of your statement - enforcing no-fly/no-drive zones in Syria would be challenging, expensive, and it's highly unlikely the administration is likely to do it as a result of this latest development. I do, however, have some quibbles over the details of your analysis.

    I recall when I made the same argument about Libya - that its air defense system was far better than other countries we have taken on in recent years, and it would take significant expense (and some risk) to degrade the system to the point that a comprehensive no fly/no drive zone could be put in place. I was certainly right - the US' initial bombardment in Libya involved a huge salvo of Tomahawk cruise missiles and an absurdly long sortie of B-2 bombers to destroy critical radar and SAM installations. That being said, there were still essentially zero casualties to AA fire in the entire operation.

    Syria is not that different. They have a modestly sophisticated air defense network, but the US has very good SEAD capabilities. Syria's newest acquisitions (including, potentially, a new S300 system) are relatively small in number; even if they were not, I would question how effective they are likely to be given the Syrian military's poor training and sophistication. The bulk of their AA defenses are a joke, using technology not much advanced from 1982 when Israel essentially destroyed their entire SA-6 network in Lebanon and had a field day against Syrian armor and aircraft. It's clear their best defenses can be beaten - Israel has repeatedly bombed sites in Syria in the last decade without losing any aircraft to enemy fire. I suspect most of it is a combination of clever flight profiles and electronic warfare. The Americans have both, in addition to stealthy capabilities and cruise missiles.

    The initial assault would indeed require some hefty hardware - likely a B-2 strike, potentially escorted by F-22s for the terminal end, and a bunch of cruise missiles. This would require a modest non-carrier naval group (essentially a few guided missile destroyers or converted submarines). The followup, though, may not require the force you envision. For one, there's the Incirlik airbase literally next door, from which the US could easily launch combat sorties - and I doubt there would be any political issues with Turkey over this. For another, the Saudis may also open of their bases to American/NATO planes given their political positioning. Even the Jordanians might, though that seems less likely. Additionally, Israel could provide some - very quiet - help as well, probably in the electronic attack arena as well as policing the border with Lebanon to ensure weapons don't make it across (this would also involves some SEAD at the border).

    Would the US still want a carrier strike group in place? Probably. It would give them another runway and quite a bit of long range ordnance, and has the added advantage of including a bunch of the new EA-18G Growlers that have proven so popular and effective in Libya and other locations. But I don't see them needing two or three CSGs given support from NATO and airbases in Turkey and potentially Saudi Arabia. It would be quite expensive, somewhat risky, and politically challenging, but I don't think it would be as hard as you suggest.

  3. #33
    The potential to rebase and stage land-based aircraft through nearby allies is certainly a factor I did not address. I was aware of it but other than B2s flying in from outside the Middle East, I'm pretty much completely ignorant about the land-based forces available.

    It's certainly possible that the Syrians will not be able to make adequate use of their newer equipment but that simply isn't an assumption our military planners can make. And it's true that Syria has effectively defended itself against Israeli sorties. I think that's deliberate though. One of the secondary goals for the Israeli sorties is gathering operational intelligence on the Syrian air defenses Bringing their defense network fully online is an invitation for Israel to eventually destroy said network. Modern air defense systems maintain function in the face of supression efforts by being the pop-up targets in a game of whack-a-mole, excessive redundancy capable of absorbing attritional efforts because most of the advantages lie with the aggressor air force. The likelihood of Russia helping to replace it after modernizing it and then watching Syria lose it for no real gain is low and Israel is not and has not been trying to knock out Assad's regime. The rebels will be and in the face of an existential threat, future operations lose substantial priority.

    Again, we can punch through if we want to. The advantages do lie with the aggressor air force absent equivalent counter-air. You've acknowledged the cost and political problems. And I'll acknowledge that my estimate on how many carrier groups we'd need may be excessive in light of whatever land-based airpower we have available. I still maintain it would be months before we'd be ready and willing to respond if the Obama administration were willing to force the issue but I think we can mostly agree that it's really not.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #34
    I really don't think Syrian inaction is deliberate vis-a-vis Israel. Granted, this is from press reports, but it seems like they've been caught flat-footed multiple times when sensitive installations have been hit. Notably, I'm thinking of the 2007 strike against the nuclear plant and the 2013 strike against the arms shipment to Hezbollah. In the former case, it appears that Syrian radar completely fooled - a recent claim by a former Syrian AF guy that they neglected to fire due to political purposes seems wildly unlikely given the sensitivity of the installation and the timescales involved. Ditto with the arms convoy - lots of posturing but it seems unlikely they had any idea an attack was coming or had time to choose inaction based on political realities. There are other times that are less clear - Israel bombed a training camp in Syria in 2003, and has several times buzzed various presidential palaces with IAF fighters when they're unhappy. I'm not as sure whether the Syrian regime would even have had those protected by air defenses, or whether they would have engaged if there were.

    Re: SEAD, it's true that a lot of it involves launching HARMs at any radar emitter that pops up, but of growing importance is the use of ELINT aircraft to confuse such radars irretrievably. The US and Israel have invested heavily in this capability (Israel more so since they have little in the way of low-observable aircraft), and I think that's a far more likely explanation for Syrian inaction than shrewd political calculation.

    That being said, I suspect we disagree on fairly fine points rather than the overall picture. I'm inclined to think it would take weeks instead of months - Incirlik could have an operation fighter squadron or two within that time frame, and a carrier strike group could be nearby by then. So, ready to respond? Weeks. Willing to respond? Potentially never.

    I recognize the political challenges associated with intervening in Syria, and the fact that a happy ending is rather unlikely whether we intervene or not. Yet I do also think that we have a bit of an obligation here. A clearly illegitimate government is slaughtering hundreds of people a day and we're sitting on the sidelines wringing our hands. I'm not very happy about that.

  5. #35
    Israel has taken its own offensive measures, according to latest news reports.

    I have a bad feeling that escalation in military intervention will drag the US into a third undeclared War.

  6. #36
    Seems like another isolated strike against Syrian weapons headed to Lebanon. Nothing to see here.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  7. #37
    I hope you're right, Loki.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I hope you're right, Loki.
    News seems to confirm it. I doubt anything will occur; Syria doesn't seem to even be acknowledging the strike.

  9. #39
    Any hypotheses on why Assad would transfer weapons to Hezbollah? Wouldn't he, you know, want them for himself?

  10. #40
    He's not transferring all his weapons. I'm going to guess he's giving Hezbollah some weapons as payment for their military support.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #41
    And historically, most of the weapons he hands over are dated models rendered surplus by recent Syrian upgrades.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by coinich View Post
    News seems to confirm it. I doubt anything will occur; Syria doesn't seem to even be acknowledging the strike.
    They sure are now.

    Large explosions tonight in Damascus with Syria blaming an Israeli attack on a Syrian military complex.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22417482
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #43
    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/...blasts.html?hp

    Looks like the weapons in question were actually Iranian.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  14. #44

  15. #45
    The very rebels some US congressmen insist we should be aiding/arming. How much messier can that mess get?

  16. #46
    I think it's certainly an interesting foreign policy puzzle. Irrespective of the question of who used chemical weapons (both the government and some rebel group? One or the other?), it's clear that the conflict continues to escalate, causing untold misery and a humanitarian crisis that is spiraling out of control. It's also clear that the Assad government has lost all legitimacy, though there are very valid questions about whether many of the prominent rebel groups would be any better. Throw in the regional issues re: Hezbollah and Iran, and things get even more complicated.

    In general, I think that a limited air campaign against government forces - notably, tactical ballistic missiles, air defenses, aircraft, and artillery - is a good idea for the simple reason that the government's use of these weapons is killing lots of civilians. I'm more leery of arming the rebel groups, even the more moderate ones, because it's inevitable that some of these weapons will filter through to some pretty nasty players. The Syrian government isn't entirely wrong when it brands the rebels as terrorists - some of them certainly are, though obviously many are not.

    Another option is to send in an international force (okay, a US force thinly disguised as an international force) to secure most of the chemical weapons stocks. This is very high risk, but may be necessary if things get even worse. I'm not a fan of this plan, and I doubt Obama would ever go for it... but it may be the least bad option if the rebels start using nerve gas regularly. We do not want an al Qaeda affiliate with access to large stocks of chemical weapons.


    Re: the Israeli strikes, I'm curious to see whether these will continue. Certainly the IAF has so far notched up successes, and they have yet to see any retaliation or serious political blowback. But a single downed plane would be a big problem. Clearly Netanyahu isn't too worried, though, and I think the Israeli defense establishment is just quietly hoping that Syria gets the message about weapons shipments to Hezbollah.

  17. #47
    Something like 20-25% of Jordan's population are now refugees, and hundreds of thousands are trying to find safe haven in other border countries. Since it's a humanitarian crisis, maybe the first focus should be on (international and UN) humanitarian aid, by sending supplies and personnel to help evacuate citizen refugees crossing borders....and give them assistance until they can be repatriated?

  18. #48
    That's already happening, though certainly there's some scope to increase aid. Lots of money is being spent on refugee camps.

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post

    In general, I think that a limited air campaign against government forces - notably, tactical ballistic missiles, air defenses, aircraft, and artillery - is a good idea for the simple reason that the government's use of these weapons is killing lots of civilians.



    Is there such a thing as a "limited air campaign"? There would be a lot of collateral damage to 'ally rebels', and innocent civilians, since those targets are sometimes located that way on purpose.

    Rather like the opposite of Saddam Hussein's Baby Milk Factory decoy tactic.

  20. #50
    It would be limited in its objective, not necessarily in the casualties thereof.

  21. #51
    In other words, a band-aid. A short-term objective that could very well inflame the situation even more by killing innocent children, women, and old men --- that perpetuates the fear-propaganda against The West (US) --- and serves as a radical/extremist/ militant recruiting tool?

    Being between a rock and a hard place is an understatement.

  22. #52
    Men, women, and children are dying by the hundreds every day in Syria. If we could take out some of the worst weapons that are causing those deaths, I think it would be rather more than a band-aid. Will it solve everything? No. But I think we have a moral obligation to try to make things better.

  23. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Men, women, and children are dying by the hundreds every day in Syria. If we could take out some of the worst weapons that are causing those deaths, I think it would be rather more than a band-aid. Will it solve everything? No. But I think we have a moral obligation to try to make things better.
    Yes, there's a desire, and moral obligation, to "help" people who are victimized by despots, dictators, and trapped in civil wars. But when "help" is defined predominantly in military terms, that can end in situations with armed rebels, who use those weapons decades later to fight another war, on another side. Afghanis armed with Russian weapons, paid for by the US, Charlie Wilson's War. Somalis armed with rocket launchers, Black Hawk down.

  24. #54
    I've found it increasingly difficult to justify violence/war with more violence/war.

    Domestically, that looks like the NRA (gun manufacturing lobby) proclaiming that the only way to fight a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    Internationally, that looks like nations proclaiming the only way to fight nuclear powered nations is to have our own nukes. Or chemicals, as WMD.

    Problem is....there's no consensus on who the Good or Bad guys are.

  25. #55
    Why do you need consensus?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  26. #56
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    To quote Frosty: What are we supposed to use? Harsh language?
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I've found it increasingly difficult to justify violence/war with more violence/war.

    Domestically, that looks like the NRA (gun manufacturing lobby) proclaiming that the only way to fight a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    Internationally, that looks like nations proclaiming the only way to fight nuclear powered nations is to have our own nukes. Or chemicals, as WMD.

    Problem is....there's no consensus on who the Good or Bad guys are.
    You think it would be hard to determine if somebody came to school with a gun with the express purpose of killing as many students/teachers as possible was a "Bad Guy" versus a "Good Guy" who was carrying a gun a school with the express goal of protecting students/teachers? You believe you'd have difficulty differentiating between the two?

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    You think it would be hard to determine if somebody came to school with a gun with the express purpose of killing as many students/teachers as possible was a "Bad Guy" versus a "Good Guy" who was carrying a gun a school with the express goal of protecting students/teachers? You believe you'd have difficulty differentiating between the two?
    The way it always generates innocents suffering is a perfectly acceptable reason to object to interstate violence.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  29. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    The way it always generates innocents suffering is a perfectly acceptable reason to object to interstate violence.
    I don't disagree. That being said I don't see the tenuous connection between violence between state actors and school shootings.

  30. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Why do you need consensus?
    Consensus was a poor choice of words? There's no simple way to identify "The Bad Guys" in advance of violence or criminal activity. It's one thing when professional police or military/intelligence use "profiling", but when average citizens try that it's often biased (with prejudice) against certain group stereotypes, and not just inaccurate but downright wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    You think it would be hard to determine if somebody came to school with a gun with the express purpose of killing as many students/teachers as possible was a "Bad Guy" versus a "Good Guy" who was carrying a gun a school with the express goal of protecting students/teachers? You believe you'd have difficulty differentiating between the two?
    No, but that wasn't my point. I meant it's not just difficult but almost impossible to determine nefarious intent based on things like gun ownership, religious identity, group affiliations...even mental status. Domestically, that's why people are usually shocked to learn a pedophile or wife beater or rapist is their neighbor, co-worker, family or friend. >Cleveland abduction and imprisonment case the latest example< Let alone a mass murderer, bomber, or 'terrorist'. There's a term for that kind of denial-by-familiarity, but I can't recall it right now.

    Internationally, it's even harder to determine Good vs Bad actors and their intentions, especially in the middle east that's full of "rebel factions" with different ideologies and goals. When there's talk of 'arming the rebels' to help overthrow a despotic regime, consensus about which rebel group gets the weapons makes a big difference. Regimes and rebels have been around for centuries, they come-and-go, but the weapons arsenals remain. <Iraq, Afghanistan>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •