So, World War 3?

[Markbnj]

Absolutely! Just ask North Korea about the licking we gave them!! Oh, well, doesn't matter, we made up for that by crushing North Vietnam. Errrr, ummmm, nevermind.

The Baathists had a country, and do not have one any longer. The Taliban also had a country, and similarly no longer have one. Why do you focus on two mudhole conflicts from 50 years ago? If you want to "win" a war you have to at least know what that means going in.

There isn't a dictator on the planet that would square off against us now, because doing so means you != dictator any more. And being dictator is so much more fun than being dead.

That leaves the major powers. Anyone who thinks we're about to get into a shooting war with Russia and/or China over Syria is breathing a different air mixture than I am.

And note also that I am being really nice to Russia here by letting them slip into the "major power" category with China. Not really justified by any capability they currently possess.

 

[Brian Stirling]

The Baathists had a country, and do not have one any longer. The Taliban also had a country, and similarly no longer have one. Why do you focus on two mudhole conflicts from 50 years ago? If you want to "win" a war you have to at least know what that means going in.

There isn't a dictator on the planet that would square off against us now, because doing so means you != dictator any more. And being dictator is so much more fun than being dead.

That leaves the major powers. Anyone who thinks we're about to get into a shooting war with Russia and/or China over Syria is breathing a different air mixture than I am.

And note also that I am being really nice to Russia here by letting them slip into the "major power" category with China. Not really justified by any capability they currently possess.

By most accounts Russia is number 3 as world powers go so dismissing them is foolish. Of course they've come down from number 2 with the end of the Soviet empire and the rise of China, but to dismiss their military power is 100% foolish even if we limit this to conventional war.

That said, it looks like Russia is going to try stopping this in the UN and are likely to make their presence known in the Med and perhaps in the Persian Gulf. This will be an interesting few weeks me thinks...


Brian

 

[K1052]

By most accounts Russia is number 3 as world powers go so dismissing them is foolish. Of course they've come down from number 2 with the end of the Soviet empire and the rise of China, but to dismiss their military power is 100% foolish even if we limit this to conventional war.

That said, it looks like Russia is going to try stopping this in the UN and are likely to make their presence known in the Med and perhaps in the Persian Gulf. This will be an interesting few weeks me thinks...


Brian

The Russian military is shell of it's former Soviet self in basically all respects. Even a limited conventional conflict with NATO at this point would sap their effective strength in a matter of days.

 

[Texashiker]

The Russian military is shell of it's former Soviet self in basically all respects. Even a limited conventional conflict with NATO at this point would sap their effective strength in a matter of days.

Who needs strength when you have veto power at the UN, and over 8,000 nuclear weapons.

 

[K1052]

Who needs strength when you have veto power at the UN, and over 8,000 nuclear weapons.

Tell that to China and India. Russia is certainly secure in their borders but beyond using it's oil and gas to cow it's neighbors their external influence is quite limited.

 

[Markbnj]

By most accounts Russia is number 3 as world powers go so dismissing them is foolish. Of course they've come down from number 2 with the end of the Soviet empire and the rise of China, but to dismiss their military power is 100% foolish even if we limit this to conventional war.

That said, it looks like Russia is going to try stopping this in the UN and are likely to make their presence known in the Med and perhaps in the Persian Gulf. This will be an interesting few weeks me thinks...


Brian

Yes, but it is a long way from #2 to #3. I guess you'd have to call them a major power still, based on that ranking, but they are nowhere near in the same category as #1 and #2. And for that matter, #2 isn't anywhere near the same category as #1.

 

[drbrock]

Absolutely! Just ask North Korea about the licking we gave them!! Oh, well, doesn't matter, we made up for that by crushing North Vietnam. Errrr, ummmm, nevermind.

Big army doesn't mean jack shit without the will to use it to WIN. We won WWII by bombing the shit out of Germany and Japan, civilian casualties be damned. As soon as we started fighting hoping to not piss anyone off we got Korea, Vietnam and eternal quagmires in the middle east. What makes you think we could fight a world war in our current namby-pamby state and beat anyone? Nobody is going to line up against us and slug it out on a well-defined front, of course we'd win that fictional war. But WWIII won't be fought that way and tanks don't do well against terrorists.

You are right on the fact if we don't go full force and try not to piss people off we will have a long road a head of us. Something titled WW3 would indicate the gloves would come off and we would go in and decimate people, civilians and all.

 

[clamum]

Putin's gonna Putin.

I find it hard to believe World War III starting over Syria.

 

[Fern]

Putin is just owning Obama.

They don't like each other and Obama just described him as a bored looking little kid, or something similar. It is said that pissed off Putin.

Putin's gonna bring his ships in and then watch Obama back ours out. It'll look like Obama wussed out. He's gonna make Obama look like his little b!tch again. It's just gamesmanship and Obama's is in over his head.

Fern

 

[Brian Stirling]

There are a good many scenarios that begin with relatively insignificant show of force and end with a full scale release of nukes. I highly doubt this will happen but dismissing the possibility doesn't make a lot of sense.

I have reasonable confidence that we will do some limited strikes, at this point I'm thinking mostly cruise missiles, and that this will all be over pretty quickly -- unless it isn't!

I also suspect that we will adjust our actions based on what Russia does and where they do it -- we'd be foolish not to.


Brian

 

[drbrock]

Putin does own Obama for sure. Funny how Putin does not respect him at all.

 

[Texashiker]

It's just gamesmanship and Obama's is in over his head.

That is what I am concerned about.

We have a rank amateur who is controlling the worlds greatest military might. And he is being faced down by 2 world super powers - russia and china.

Its like handing the keys of a mustang over to a 17 year old kid, bad things are going to happen.

 

[rga]

So are is the US going to attack Syria or something? I don't watch tv.

Radio? Newspaper? Online?

Deaf? Illiterate? Luddite?

 

[Texashiker]

Putin does own Obama for sure. Funny how Putin does not respect him at all.

Putin has been in government most of his life. Boris Yeltsin personally put Putin in a situation to take control of Russia.

What has obama done? He got elected to the senate, wrote a book, and got elected president.

Putin is a real leader. Obama is nothing more than a talker.

 

[Colt45]

deal with it america

 

[Texashiker]

deal with it america

True leader,

 

[Fritzo]

I'm not to keep on the US doing this without UN approval. However, I'm also not too keep on Russia and China agreeing nothing should be done.

 

[Fritzo]

There are a good many scenarios that begin with relatively insignificant show of force and end with a full scale release of nukes. I highly doubt this will happen but dismissing the possibility doesn't make a lot of sense.

I have reasonable confidence that we will do some limited strikes, at this point I'm thinking mostly cruise missiles, and that this will all be over pretty quickly -- unless it isn't!

I also suspect that we will adjust our actions based on what Russia does and where they do it -- we'd be foolish not to.


Brian

I think it will be quick too, similar to what Clinton did in retaliation for the USS Cole.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The Baathists had a country, and do not have one any longer. The Taliban also had a country, and similarly no longer have one. Why do you focus on two mudhole conflicts from 50 years ago? If you want to "win" a war you have to at least know what that means going in.

You better look up the word "win" because if you're counting what we've done in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the middle east as wins you have a seriously screwed up concept of what "win" means. Toppling one regime that hates us and breeds terrorists to fight us so that another regime that hates us can take power and breed other terrorists to fight is not in any way, shape or form "winning" a war. All we've done is gotten bogged down getting forces chewed up in a military occupation without a clear objective. And that's why anyone that thinks we're going to win WW3 just by finding the keys to all the aircraft carriers and getting the fighter pilots out of bed is a moron. We have not truly won a war in nearly 70 years. All we've done is toppled a few dictators because we lacked the political will to actually do what was necessary to win. It's hard to make the jump from getting Noriega out of Panama and kicking a few hundred Cubans out of Grenada into the US being capable of winning a World War because those are really the only wins on our resume since 1945 and neither one was even close to being a war.

 

[Texashiker]

I think it will be quick too, similar to what Clinton did in retaliation for the USS Cole.

I am seeing a trend,

When democrats are in office, nothing gets done.

When republicans are in office, we blow stuff up, invade other nations and overthrow governments. The American way, hell yea.

 

[Svnla]

I think WW3 will be more than" likely" in Asia. China vs. US allies such as Japan, Taiwan, et al and then the US would get suck in.

 

[Black Octagon]

This whole situation with Syria, with the Russians now involved. Will there be actions or just Putin being Putin?

If it breaks, who do you have money on?

And this has what to do with 'WW3' precisely?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

By most accounts Russia is number 3 as world powers go so dismissing them is foolish. Of course they've come down from number 2 with the end of the Soviet empire and the rise of China, but to dismiss their military power is 100% foolish even if we limit this to conventional war.

That said, it looks like Russia is going to try stopping this in the UN and are likely to make their presence known in the Med and perhaps in the Persian Gulf. This will be an interesting few weeks me thinks...


Brian

Really don't agree with that assessment, Russia still #2 in terms of military power and being able to end the world: they still have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, the largest tank force in the world, the 2nd largest ballistic missile submarine fleet, and is the only other country other the USA with a modern strategic bomber force.


China certainly has more economic power, but they still pretty much have nothing over Russia other than potential foot soldier advantage. In a fight with each other, Russia would steamroll China.

 

[Markbnj]

You better look up the word "win" because if you're counting what we've done in Afghanistan, Iraq and the rest of the middle east as wins you have a seriously screwed up concept of what "win" means.

The goals of destroying the regimes in both cases were accomplished, just as they were in the cases of Germany and Japan. The modern failures have occurred after the primary military mission was accomplished. They were failures of political will. That doesn't mean that we were militarily unable to complete our objectives.

It's fairly useless to compare either world war, during both of which we had good reason to think that the entire world order as we knew it was threatened, with conflicts like those in asia and the middle east, which were designed to change the political landscape and balance of power in those regions. A fight for abstract concepts like that is a lot harder to get support for in a democracy, as I think it should be.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Really don't agree with that assessment, Russia still #2 in terms of military power and being able to end the world: they still have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, the largest tank force in the world, the 2nd largest ballistic missile submarine fleet, and is the only other country other the USA with a modern strategic bomber force.


China certainly has more economic power, but they still pretty much have nothing over Russia other than potential foot soldier advantage. In a fight with each other, Russia would steamroll China.

It's debatable on whether they are #2 or #3. They certainly have a much larger stockpile of tanks and such but much of it isn't operable so the true strength is uncertain.

At any rate, dismissing Russia is unwise and if Putin went nuts we could have more than we bargained for.

Again, I think Russia will first try to block this at the UN and if that fails they are likely to make a show of force by moving naval assets and possibly air assets into the region. I'd not worry quite so much about the naval assets but if they moved a few hundred fighters and fighter/bombers into the region things could get complicated real quick.

Then there's the concern about who benefits from any action we make with the likely benefactor being Jabhat al-Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliated group that seems best equipped and most effective against the government.

This is not an easy call...


Brian