Russo-Syrian arms shenanigans

[BruceVC]

 

 

If, a third world war scenario

 

 Don't be silly there is absolutely NO chance of a Third World War. I can't believe you actually think this is even a remote outcome?

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

If, a third world war scenario

 

 Don't be silly there is absolutely NO chance of a Third World War. I can't believe you actually think this is even a remote outcome?

 

 

Not as things currently stand, no. But a decade or two down the line, a conflict between China and the US (referred to here as a world war only because of scope, not necessarily because it would involve a lot of countries) is not unthinkable, if the US keeps the same policies it has now on one hand and if China isn't brought down by its internal problems on the other.

 

The policy of surrounding Russia with NATO countries and nuclear warheads in eastern Europe has a similar result but how far the Russians would go to counter that is anybody's guess. Realistically Russia can only engage in nuclear war with the US and that's only likely to happen in the most extreme of situations.

[Bos_hybrid]

 

History repeating itself.

 

The fact that the West is backing the side, which by all reports is losing ground(due to Hezbollah troops, incoming Iranian troops and incoming arms from Russia). Will most likely mean direct intervention is needed to bring down Assad.

 

No I don't see this as that bad, you need to also consider another result with the  West openly aiding the rebels that this becomes a classic proxy war and Iran has to pour even more money and resources into assisting Assad. This weakens Iran which is not necessarily a bad thing if you think of other tensions in the area?

 

 

1. You are assuming both Russia and China will be fine with Western troops in Syria.

 

2. Seeing dead Western soldiers, for the sake of the region(Israel) is not something I want to see.

 

3. There is a good chance that if the rebels win the war, that in 10-20 years later we will be invading Syria due to a massive terrorist presence. A presence trained by the west.

 

What we are seeing here is not a war for democracy, but a war of Sunni vs Shiite.

 Don't be silly there is absolutely NO chance of a Third World War. I can't believe you actually think this is even a remote outcome?

 

It's not a matter of if, but when. Hopefully I'm long dead when it comes. As for it coming from this conflict, doubtful. But why chance it.

[BruceVC]

 

 

History repeating itself.

 

The fact that the West is backing the side, which by all reports is losing ground(due to Hezbollah troops, incoming Iranian troops and incoming arms from Russia). Will most likely mean direct intervention is needed to bring down Assad.

 

No I don't see this as that bad, you need to also consider another result with the  West openly aiding the rebels that this becomes a classic proxy war and Iran has to pour even more money and resources into assisting Assad. This weakens Iran which is not necessarily a bad thing if you think of other tensions in the area?

 

 

1. You are assuming both Russia and China will be fine with Western troops in Syria.

 

2. Seeing dead Western soldiers, for the sake of the region(Israel) is not something I want to see.

 

3. There is a good chance that if the rebels win the war, that in 10-20 years later we will be invading Syria due to a massive terrorist presence. A presence trained by the west.

 

What we are seeing here is not a war for democracy, but a war of Sunni vs Shiite.

 Don't be silly there is absolutely NO chance of a Third World War. I can't believe you actually think this is even a remote outcome?

 

It's not a matter of if, but when. Hopefully I'm long dead when it comes. As for it coming from this conflict, doubtful. But why chance it.

 

 

The West won't be sending ground troops, this is more about direct military aid around arms and equipment  and maybe military advisor's. So you won't ever see dead western soldiers in Damascus

[Drowsy Emperor]

I think the key question of the next few decades is: will the policy makers in Washingon reach?

 

They have a huge army and a strong economy, but the economy is not as powerful as it once was and the competition is slowly but steadily rising. Down the line the army will suffer from these reduction in the economy as well.

 

They're in the typical tempting scenario of an empire on a decline. A lot of potent power that begs to be used to secure as much as it can, as fast as it can - because its on a timer. The conquest of Iraq's oil is a typical example of this.

But the inherent danger is one of not adjusting one's greed and ambitions on one hand to the capabilities and reactions of ones opponents.

If they do not reach (militarily) and readjust their position and give up world ambitions like the British empire did, then the outcome for the rest of the world is bright. The other outcome is horrible. What is very likely is a cold war scenario (that the US and China are practically engaging in now) leading to an increase in tensions. Where those tensions will lead us is the million dollar question.

[BruceVC]

I think the key question of the next few decades is: will the policy makers in Washingon reach?

 

They have a huge army and a strong economy, but the economy is not as powerful as it once was and the competition is slowly but steadily rising. Down the line the army will suffer from these reduction in the economy as well.

 

They're in the typical tempting scenario of an empire on a decline. A lot of potent power that begs to be used to secure as much as it can, as fast as it can - because its on a timer. The conquest of Iraq's oil is a typical example of this.

But the inherent danger is one of not adjusting one's greed and ambitions on one hand to the capabilities and reactions of ones opponents.

If they do not reach (militarily) and readjust their position and give up world ambitions like the British empire did, then the outcome for the rest of the world is bright. The other outcome is horrible. What is very likely is a cold war scenario (that the US and China are practically engaging in now) leading to an increase in tensions. Where those tensions will lead us is the million dollar question.

 

We will blame Serbia if the world enters another Cold War, which is not unreasonable as they have already been the catalyst for one World War?

 

[Bos_hybrid]

The West won't be sending ground troops, this is more about direct military aid around arms and equipment  and maybe military advisor's. So you won't ever see dead western soldiers in Damascus

 

 

Without direct intervention, the conflict will be sustained and escalated, which is supposedly not what the West wants.

 

No military aid should be sent.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Bos_hybrid

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

I think the key question of the next few decades is: will the policy makers in Washingon reach?

 

They have a huge army and a strong economy, but the economy is not as powerful as it once was and the competition is slowly but steadily rising. Down the line the army will suffer from these reduction in the economy as well.

 

They're in the typical tempting scenario of an empire on a decline. A lot of potent power that begs to be used to secure as much as it can, as fast as it can - because its on a timer. The conquest of Iraq's oil is a typical example of this.

But the inherent danger is one of not adjusting one's greed and ambitions on one hand to the capabilities and reactions of ones opponents.

If they do not reach (militarily) and readjust their position and give up world ambitions like the British empire did, then the outcome for the rest of the world is bright. The other outcome is horrible. What is very likely is a cold war scenario (that the US and China are practically engaging in now) leading to an increase in tensions. Where those tensions will lead us is the million dollar question.

 

We will blame Serbia if the world enters another Cold War, which is not unreasonable as they have already been the catalyst for one World War?

 

 

 

Wouldn't be surprised, shifting ones own guilt to another is a very human coping mechanism

[Walsingham]

If you think the US military is on the wane then you're dreaming. The only way they fall down is in the insane disunity in command. Everything else is belt and braces, from doctrine to dogtags. A reduction in spending might actually be good for them.

[Rostere]

If you think the US military is on the wane then you're dreaming. The only way they fall down is in the insane disunity in command. Everything else is belt and braces, from doctrine to dogtags. A reduction in spending might actually be good for them.

 

The US' part of the global economy was the highest somewhere around 1950, so I'd say their military capability (since industry = military in modern wars) relative to the rest of the world has made the same progress (regress?).

 

But really, who cares about singling out the US anyway when we adopt a global perspective. A more interesting estimate would be the size of NATO nations' economy in percentage of that of the entire world.

 

The only reason people still think the US as powerful as it was before is because even if the world has become more multipolar, it has not necessarily become more bipolar (not referencing the psychological term). There is no single enemy or alliance or enemies significant enough to challenge NATO (you might regard this as a coincidence, or as a victory of diplomacy ).

[Zoraptor]

 

 

 

If, a third world war scenario

 

 Don't be silly there is absolutely NO chance of a Third World War. I can't believe you actually think this is even a remote outcome?

 

If the Russians do supply S300s they'll be crewed or supervised by Russians. If the west wants to set up a no fly zone (without UN mandate, given Russia and China will both likely veto) those S300s will have to go as they're able to hit targets at very high altitudes and very great distances, and that means the likelihood of dead Russians.

 

If you think the US military is on the wane then you're dreaming.

As Rostere says, it's the economy that's the weakness. The US (and other western countries) are heavily indebted and only going more into debt, at some point putting the military on the credit card has to stop and at that point it may well become impractical to have quite the global projection that the US has been used to since the 50s. They may be going for more cost effective measures, but they're untested.

[Drowsy Emperor]

That's actually what I said but Walsingham couldn't be bothered to read.

[Walsingham]

That's actually what I said but Walsingham couldn't be bothered to read.

 

What I can't be bothered to read are your apocalypse fantasies.

 

I understood quite clearly that you're arguing an economic downturn will cripple the military capability of the US. Your argument is - again - a fantasy. The USA has an immense economy and military. Cuts to US military spending could be absorbed on an enormous scale and it might just reduce their crisis response to only two World crises at once, rather than three.

 

Even if spending cuts reduced the regular US military to the level of China it would be at least one or two generations before anyone else caught up. The US economy can't possibly stay down for that long. The country has a strong economy built into its _geography_.

 

You may be stuck in your attic dreaming of rivers of blood for a wee while yet.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Walsingham

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

If, a third world war scenario

 

 Don't be silly there is absolutely NO chance of a Third World War. I can't believe you actually think this is even a remote outcome?

 

If the Russians do supply S300s they'll be crewed or supervised by Russians. If the west wants to set up a no fly zone (without UN mandate, given Russia and China will both likely veto) those S300s will have to go as they're able to hit targets at very high altitudes and very great distances, and that means the likelihood of dead Russians.

 

If you think the US military is on the wane then you're dreaming.

As Rostere says, it's the economy that's the weakness. The US (and other western countries) are heavily indebted and only going more into debt, at some point putting the military on the credit card has to stop and at that point it may well become impractical to have quite the global projection that the US has been used to since the 50s. They may be going for more cost effective measures, but they're untested.

 

 

Come on Zora I'm vociferously pro-western but lets not fool ourselves. There is no way the West is going to declare war on Russia or China over Syria and vice versa.

 

And we all know about  the prodigious debts of Western countries, but these are debts that countries like China also need and support as they are export driven and if hypothetically the USA economy should collapse then China and the world economy will suffer immeasurable harm. So that's not going to happen

 

Sorry boys but you need to find other things to post around doom and gloom for the Western world. Maybe someone can find evidence that a comet is going to hit Europe or the USA. Now that would be worrying?

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

That's actually what I said but Walsingham couldn't be bothered to read.

 

What I can't be bothered to read are your apocalypse fantasies.

 

I understood quite clearly that you're arguing an economic downturn will cripple the military capability of the US. Your argument is - again - a fantasy. The USA has an immense economy and military. Cuts to US military spending could be absorbed on an enormous scale and it might just reduce their crisis response to only two World crises at once, rather than three.

 

Even if spending cuts reduced the regular US military to the level of China it would be at least one or two generations before anyone else caught up. The US economy can't possibly stay down for that long. The country has a strong economy built into its _geography_.

 

You may be stuck in your attic dreaming of rivers of blood for a wee while yet.

 

 

We're talking decades down the line, not this time tomorrow. It doesn't really matter how long it takes for other competitors to catch up as long as they're doing so.  The US economy doesn't have to suffer any economic collapse, its relative power is shrinking by the mere fact that the opposition's is growing.

The post USSR collapse situation where the US is the strongest military and strongest economy was always living on borrowed time.

 

 What was actually being discussed there is whether the US will accept just being one of the world powers or if it will make a bid to stay the only power through military conflict, because down the line that will probably be the only way to secure that position.

 

BTW you're not fooling anyone with your wild assumptions regarding my "fantasies" - everyone here knows you'd be the first to advocate bombing China back to the stone age if it were feasible, the same way you justify any military "intervention". 

 

I in fact am for a balance of powers scenario because its the only way a small country can hope to protect its own interests. 

Edited June 17, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

 

 

That's actually what I said but Walsingham couldn't be bothered to read.

 

 

 

 

BTW you're not fooling anyone with your wild assumptions regarding my "fantasies" - everyone here knows you'd be the first to advocate bombing China back to the stone age if it were feasible, the same way you justify any military "intervention". 

 

 

 

It’s a bitter pill to swallow but sometimes military intervention is the only thing certain governments understand. The difference nowadays is that no Western country will  make a serious  militarily commitment to a conflict unless the UN security council endorses it.

 

 

This is a structural problem IMO and as I've mentioned Syria is a good example of the impotence of the UN or rather when the UN security council is divided on how to act

Edited June 17, 2013 by BruceVC

[Drowsy Emperor]

If its legitimate for the US to demand action its also legitimate for China. Russia etc. to be against it. The UN isn't impotent, is serving its purpose by not allowing drastic action without legitimacy and consensus.

 

Is the UN there to serve US/EU interests or is it there to serve everyone equally?

Edited June 17, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[BruceVC]

If its legitimate for the US to demand action its also legitimate for China. Russia etc. to be against it. The UN isn't impotent, is serving its purpose by not allowing drastic action without legitimacy and consensus.

 

Is the UN there to serve US/EU interests or is it there to serve everyone equally?

 

The UN is there to serve the interests of the world and its members.

 

But maybe you can explain to me how letting Syria decline into a country where millions of its citizens are displaced, tens of thousands of its people are killed and its infrastructure is destroyed is in the interests of anyone?

 And to make things worse Western countries aren't asking Russia and China to support them with resources in Syria they are just saying "allow us to intervene"

 

Not that China or Russia would assist in any military conflict unless there national interests were threatened of course.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

If its legitimate for the US to demand action its also legitimate for China. Russia etc. to be against it. The UN isn't impotent, is serving its purpose by not allowing drastic action without legitimacy and consensus.

 

Is the UN there to serve US/EU interests or is it there to serve everyone equally?

 

The UN is there to serve the interests of the world and its members.

 

But maybe you can explain to me how letting Syria decline into a country where millions of its citizens are displaced, tens of thousands of its people are killed and its infrastructure is destroyed is in the interests of anyone?

 And to make things worse Western countries aren't asking Russia and China to support them with resources in Syria they are just saying "allow us to intervene"

 

Not that China or Russia would assist in any military conflict unless there national interests were threatened of course.

 

 

Does the US not want to intervene because of its national interests? Are you suggesting their motive in this is pure altruism?

 

If they indeed want peace, why not support Assad along with Russia and China? That would restore order in a fortnight. 

 

Please don't use the "dictator" excuse. The west has propped up a lot of dictators and authoritarian regimes and continues to do so. 

 

And why would Russia and China be enthusiastic about supporting the illegitimate rebels (or the west in their support of them), and any other side other than the legitimate government? That goes against the UN charter. 

 

Use of force according to the UN charter is allowed to counter a threat to world peace, not to intervene in internal issues of other countries. Is the conflict in Syria a threat to world peace? It does not appear to be. 

It is in fact, an internal conflict. Under the UN charter, the legitimate government of Syria is fully within its rights to fight the rebellion the quickest way to end the conflict would be to help it do so efficiently.

 

What is not helping, is supplying the rebels with arms because that brings them closer to the capabilities of the Syrian army, which in turn means the conflict is more likely to stalemate.

[Malcador]

That and giving guns to untrustworthy people has proven to be a great idea in the past.

[Rostere]

 

That's actually what I said but Walsingham couldn't be bothered to read.

 

What I can't be bothered to read are your apocalypse fantasies.

 

I understood quite clearly that you're arguing an economic downturn will cripple the military capability of the US. Your argument is - again - a fantasy. The USA has an immense economy and military. Cuts to US military spending could be absorbed on an enormous scale and it might just reduce their crisis response to only two World crises at once, rather than three.

 

Even if spending cuts reduced the regular US military to the level of China it would be at least one or two generations before anyone else caught up. The US economy can't possibly stay down for that long. The country has a strong economy built into its _geography_.

 

You may be stuck in your attic dreaming of rivers of blood for a wee while yet.

 

 

I can't speak for others, but I'm talking about a historical downturn which has been continuously ongoing since about 1950.

This has nothing to do with debt, or the possibility of another crushing financial crisis. Classifying something as "immense" is meaningless without introducing a relative measure. Nonetheless, comparing military spending directly is only relevant for very short time scales. If we're not doing that, then industrial capacity gives a more realistic measure of power.

 

I think you're overestimating the US' technological advantage as well. An aggressive rearmament of any of the other major powers would put them rather close to the US in only a handful of years. Supposedly China already knows everything about American high-tech defense through hacking anyway (!?).

 

If we must compare individual countries, the US is definitely on top today. But it's on a slow but steady decline and that's nothing new, it's been that way for some 60 years. Remeber we're talking RELATIVE power. So if you see that the US economy has grown 3% and the Chinese economy has grown 8%, that means the US has lost power to China. There is no need for the US economy to crash or ever go into a recession for this change to happen. As long as other parts of the world keeps growing faster, the power will shift. Ironically the rise of China is funded by Western venture capitalists, outsourcing companies, and at times our own pension funds. Make no mistake, this is economically sound and gives huge profits to the West. However who ultimately controls the means of production will have a significant advantage in war. Thus China and the West grow increasingly interdependent, and even though this leads to a decline in Western power, it is my opinion that it minimizes the risk of war.

 

Also I disagree with the critics of the UN. The UN is a great forum for precisely the reason that it hands over important global decisions to the global community. Of course the UN is never going to reach a consensus over Syria, but in this process and in many others we avoid the risk of unilateral action, one of the consequences of which can be a world war. A powerful UN in 1914 or in the late thirties could have prevented both those wars. The UN and the atomic bomb are the greatest inventions for peace of the 20th century.

[Cultist]

Why the hell russians not supporting BOTH sides? For great justice! Russia, Europe and USA have insane number of heavily outdated small arms literally rotting in their storages thanks to good old Cold War Era. Military have great problem utilizing this old ****. Why not sell it for the needy. they can even share it with Africa - will work wonders with population control and solve starvation problem way better than humanitarian aid.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Cultist

[Walsingham]

What I don't really understand is why we'd send guns. Surely a more media friendly and all round more economical option would be to send things to improve their survivability. Body armour, bandages, hand sterilizer. Keeping the rebels in the fight is a force multiplier, and it;s one they don't have currently. Whereas they seem to be armed to the teeth with guns already.

 

Plus, it occurs to me that the jifs would enjoy body armour the least, and that's always pleasing.

[Drowsy Emperor]

What I don't really understand is why we'd send guns. Surely a more media friendly and all round more economical option would be to send things to improve their survivability. Body armour, bandages, hand sterilizer. Keeping the rebels in the fight is a force multiplier, and it;s one they don't have currently. Whereas they seem to be armed to the teeth with guns already.

 

Plus, it occurs to me that the jifs would enjoy body armour the least, and that's always pleasing.

 

How will it calm the situation down if the illegitimate rebels can draw out the conflict longer?

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

The UN and the atomic bomb are the greatest inventions for peace of the 20th century.

 

What's your position on nuclear proliferation then? Seems hypocritical not to allow Iran to have a nuclear program when Israel has one. Same applies to North Korea naturally.