[johnm]

The Western involvement is all about the US and Saudi versus Russia and Iran. So the game is about whether the US and Saudi are top dog in the Middle East as they have been or whether Russia and Iran take over.

[OCB]

I think we can all see that there is more to this strike than a response to the (yet unproven) chemical attack by Syrian Govt forces on their own people.

I’d prefer to see Assad replaced ASAP after the conflict is over, peacefully, and Assad in The Hague in charges of war crimes. Let the lawyers and judges decide.

I doubt that will happen, and having him off’d at a later date would send a clear message to others that the use of chemical weapons will end up in life in prison or the call of the grim reaper.

His successor would need to relatively “clean”, which given the length of this conflict is going to be hard, but not impossible.

There is certainly not much point WRT the Syrian conflict with last night’s fireworks display. As a counter to Putin, for some of his recent shenanigans- I think it is a fair play.

He said “you better not, or else” - and the West stuck their middle finger up at him.

[Bill McCarthy]

I guess my buddies on patrol at this time will be contemplating those sixteen missile tubes more than normal.

[Irv Lee]

Ignoring Russia for the moment, Isn't the most likely response from Syria likely to be do the chemical stuff again fairly quickly in some way to show "that didn't work", and the most likely Iranian response to do something to drag Israel in?

[Flintstone]

Ignoring Russia for the moment, Isn't the most likely response from Syria likely to be do the chemical stuff again fairly quickly in some way to show "that didn't work", and the most likely Iranian response to do something to drag Israel in?

I don’t think you can leave Russia out of it. Assad is their puppet.

The Russians were given the opportunity to step aside and they did. Their threats of retaliation were all based upon anything happening to their own assets and by being warned they had the opportunity to save face. They know that if Syria use chemicals again there is likely to be another response from the US/UK/France and having stepped aside once I believe the Russians would do so again.

I am, as I type this, watching the British and French presentations to the UN Security Council (I either missed the US or they are up next) but it’s being made clear that the Russians have vetoed previous attempts to remove Syria’s chemical weapons. Both the U.K. and France are also talking about bringing those responsible (Assad) to justice as if that’s the next step.

Much as Russia need Syria, Assad is becoming a liability. If they thought he was about to do something stupid I think they’d stop him. For all their bravado and sabre rattling they must know that simply denying these chemicals have been used isn’t working.

[Irv Lee]

I dint think I was ignoring Russia, it just seems most were ignoring the other 2.

[OCB]

I guess my buddies on patrol at this time will be contemplating those sixteen missile tubes more than normal.

Bill, let’s hope that contemplating is all they do.

Interesting to see that the Russians are saying a large percentage of missiles were taken out by archaic defence systems. I guess I’m not the only one to find that a bit bizarre.

Flight path of the SAMs were quite uppity up, but I always thought that slow moving Cruise type boom-sticks were terrain hugging.

Anyone more up to date on these things?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Interesting to see that the Russians are saying a large percentage of missiles were taken out by archaic defence systems. I guess I’m not the only one to find that a bit bizarre.

Why?

You think they are truthful?

[OCB]

Interesting to see that the Russians are saying a large percentage of missiles were taken out by archaic defence systems. I guess I’m not the only one to find that a bit bizarre.

Why?

You think they are truthful?

There's an old saying in English - even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Having had close ATC buddies in GW1, my father in Aden when things got hot + fall of Libya to Gaddifi , the godfather of one of my kids in the Serbian mobile artillery during the breakup of Yugoslavia, workmates in 2Para in the Falklands + military intelligence during the Balkans wars, Polish mates in the Soviet military in the 80s etc, I've read and heard enough first hand experiences to *not* trust the main-stream-media at the time that missiles are raining down.

There was a time when us Westerners took for granted anything our Govts said(ish). Kitchener anyone?

Then there was a time we trusted the Press over the Govts. Now, the majority of those with a scintilla of worldliness will quite rightly doubt first, and only after - possibly - partly - accept the propaganda feed.

I was one of the several million who clearly and publicly doubted the Bush/Blair "Saddam 9/11" mantra. Hans Blix was in country and clearly said "do not bomb".

Who in their right mind today would say that Saddam was responsible for 9/11?

That's why I ask if there are those more current in our missile capabilities. We know we can't trust "our" press, and certainly can't trust the Moscow lot.

[Bill McCarthy]

I thought the Tornado was retired - what of the Typhoon in all this ?

[Jim Jones]

I thought the Tornado was retired - what of the Typhoon in all this ?

Flying top cover for the Tornadoes.

BBC reporting 4 went to protect the bombers. I think that worried me more somehow. Air to air stuff isn’t going to end well whoever loses the duel.

[Bill Haddow]

I haven't followed the minutiae of this over the past few years, my understanding (and happy to be corrected) is that we (the West) didn't like Assad, so when there was a revolt against him we supported those that were revolting. Then we found out that the revolting (literally) people were Taliban / ISIS / Al Quaeda whom we regarded as revolting (figuratively).

So I cannot see that we have a dog in this fight, we don't want Assad to win, and we don't want the revolters to win. So why are we engaging in military activity ?

The first principle of war, according to British Defence Doctrine*, is "Selection and Maintenance of the Aim" which is defined as establishing a clear, unambiguous, and achievable aim.

What is our aim ?

Bill H

* Phrased slightly differently, this is a principle that has been adopted by many successful forces over the centuries.

[Flintstone]

Interesting to see that the Russians are saying a large percentage of missiles were taken out by archaic defence systems. I guess I’m not the only one to find that a bit bizarre.

Why?

You think they are truthful?

Several sources are reporting that none of the Russian air defence systems were activated. Only the Syrians ones (after all the inbound missiles had detonated) and then they fired everything they had from BUK AA guns to anti-missile missiles. Except the latter weren’t guided as their makers intended, instead they were simply loosed off in a poke-and-hope way, too late to hit anything.

Do I believe this? It’s credible. I can see how poorly trained troops would have hunkered down during the attack only to pop up afterward yelling “Allahu akhbar!” before lighting the blue touchpaper on everything they had and firing AK-47s blindly into the night sky.

As one military talking head put it “If you fire iron up into the sky it’s going to come down somewhere”. What’s the betting there will be a few such home goals being claimed as Allied collateral damage?

[Irv Lee]

If I were in charge of a Syrian anti aircraft gun I would make damn sure the number of shells in my possession at sunrise was a lot fewer than the number i had the previous sunset

[PeteSpencer]

[
Interesting to see that the Russians are saying a large percentage of missiles were taken out by archaic defence systems. I guess I’m not the only one to find that a bit bizarre.

Flight path of the SAMs were quite uppity up, but I always thought that slow moving Cruise type boom-sticks were terrain hugging.

Anyone more up to date on these things?

As I understand it the Russian anti missile systems are far from archaic: Putin has been shoving all Russia's money into such systems at the expense of the starving Russian population for the last five years.

And the cruise missiles ground hug till approaching the target when they climb to several miles high before turning back to earth and obliterating the target.

Hence the uppity up SAMs...

Peter