The coming middle east war

The coming middle east war

Much of he US economy is based on military arms to the world and controlling natural resources. Russia and other bloc countries are in the same predicament. The same Congressmen advocating Iraq, Iran, and Afghan invasions want to put 'boots on the ground' in Syria. That won't be as easy to start with Obama taking a cautions approach. A Republican Presidency could assure that war.

.

Russia is raising the bar as to how many military personnel will be at risk They are supplying Syria with the Yakhont anti-ship cruise missile, designed to avoid radar. This means that any ships within 180 miles from the Syrian ports in the Mediterranean are at risk when supplying or transporting. It makes moving carriers within that distance hazardous as thousands of personnel are at risk in one carrier.

.

"the Wall Street Journal, reports that Moscow has deployed at least a dozen warships to patrol waters near the Russian naval base in the Syrian city of Tartus.

...

The initial order - for 72 missiles along with launcher and support vehicles - was placed in 2007 and the first deliveries received in early 2011, said the paper.

...

But there is concern that the presence of sophisticated Russian-supplied weaponry will make it much harder to agree and carry out such intervention, implement a blockade or conduct targeted airstrikes in the future.

...

It enables the regime to deter foreign forces looking to supply the opposition from the sea, or from undertaking a more active role if a no-fly zone or a shipping embargo were to be declared at some point""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22565405

 

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments

  1. gbakere

    Here we go. So…will this be the catalyst that starts the big one? We need to eliminate or at least radically reduce our dependence on oil…unless it’s already too late. Then we can let the Middle East fight their wars without our need to intervene. After all, it appears our only reason for being there outside of protecting Israel is to protect our oil interests and chances are, we made the decision to protect Israel for strategic positioning where “our” oil is concerned. Everything is about money and our armed forces’ strategy is being dictated by trade. We really need to figure out how to shift gears and we need to do it quickly. I wish I could say I have high hopes but the financial interests seem overwhelming.

    May 17, 2013
  2. williamemills41

    But…last week they said that it would not be possible to effectively launch missions into Syria due to the Russian supplied and manned anti air infrastructure…right before Isreal jets began making strikes into Syria…I think it’s time to start to transition towards SOME of the Libertarian ideas, maybe not full on, but a common sense transition.

    May 22, 2013
  3. livelonger

    There is some kind of connection between missions into Syria – and Libertarianism?

    May 22, 2013
    1. williamemills41

      Of course. The Libertarian ideals promote less involvment in foreign affairs. So, if we were starting to actually think about a gradual shift towards some of the libertarian ideas, we could actually NOT be there…anywhere in the mid east. Cut off aid, cut off oil sales, cut off military intervention, cut off all diplomatic ties with all foreign entities that support a culture where aggression is tolerated. More than half of our problems would be removed with that philosophy being enacted.

      May 22, 2013
      1. livelonger

        Libertarianism doesn’t require isolationism. Diplomacy, trade (including oil) could still occur under free trade. Military aggression could be avoided in favor of trade; even trade with aggressive nations, so long as it isn’t upon us.

        May 22, 2013
        1. williamemills41

          It doesn’t require it, but it allows it. At least allow us to limit it. And although diplomacy and trade could occur, it could also be curtailed if the balance of benefit wasn’t fair (OPEC in 1972, for example), and Syria isn’t being aggressive with us, other than reacting against our threats (or UN threats, if you prefer). My thinking is that some things might turn out better if some of these countries would remember what we mean as a country to their country, if it was removed and then allowed to be renegotiated, if neccessary. We spend way too much in lives and money to be in places where we aren’t wanted or needed. Let the oil companies provide their own security if that is the issue.

          May 22, 2013
          1. livelonger

            “At least allow us to limit it. " The problem seems to be that the ‘us’ isn’t the same ‘of us’ that profit from the threat of war with investments in hedge funds that draw skim from market variation. That ‘of us’ is the smaller portion of us; though they make the decisions in legislation through lobbies.

            May 22, 2013
            1. williamemills41

              Which is why I said that we need to start embracing the ideals…moving away from the obvious capitalism for exploitation and profit crowd. War on Terror, War on Drugs being the two most obvious and profitable examples. If we can start limiting the “us” that manipulate the system, then the rest of us would have a better chance of not dieing in the current or next “War” for profit.

              May 22, 2013
            2. livelonger

              Congessmen millionaires have their funds controlled remotely to keep from looking like they’re directly manipulating specific markets for their lobbyists, that’s why they gave the special 15% tax rate to their money handlers.
              .
              The stock market is at a record high. The timing of the Syrian conflict is interesting. Ordinarily, the stock market plummets in stock value at the end of April, as the wealthy have their investments increase from hedge fund shorting. It results in ‘sell in May and walk away’ (until November, when they come back from vacations and start investing til next April again.)
              .
              This time around, the administration didn’t go all out for war to dump the economy and stock market. It will be interesting to see what happens to the market this summer,

              May 23, 2013
            3. livelonger

              The stock market is reacting as if a war is imminent as oil related stocks rise while the WTI and Brent prices become closer in price. US fracking eventually means the US returns as a major world petroleum supplier, without the need to invade other nations for their oil.

              May 23, 2013
  4. SeasonedBeginner

    FEAR. That’s the current. Plug in and go to war. Conservative =Fear: their way of life.

    May 22, 2013
  5. mrmacq

    this machine is quite the addition to an arsenel
    .
    Yakhont anti-ship cruise missile
    Also Known As: 3M55, Bastion (land based missile system), Oniks, Onyx, P-800 and SS-N-26 (SS-NX-26)

    Description: The Yakhont, SS-N-26 codename, is an advanced supersonic, long range, anti-ship missile intended for surface ships, submarines and coastal defense batteries. It is a liquid fuel ramjet-powered version of SS-N-7 Starbright missile enabled to be launched by canisters and VLS. The missile features an inertial navigation system to reach the target area with an active radar homing in the terminal phase of the flight. It has been designed to operate in severe countermeasure environments and features improved maneuverability and reduced signatures over the SS-N-7 for improved survivability.

    The Yakhont is a fire and forget missile and features several launch modes in accordance with the target characteristics and location. The missile can use a high-low flight pattern for targets located at up to 300 km. The low-low flight pattern can be used against targets at ranges of 120 km or against well protected targets in order to be surprised minimizing its reaction time against the incoming missile and optimizing the missile’s kill probability. During the low flight profile the Yakhont missile is able to fly at altitudes between 5 and 15 meters like a sea-skimming missile.

    The Yakhont is intended as a Russian surface ships and submarines anti-ship missile. It has been designed to defeat ships protected by the US AEGIS weapon system and its European counterparts.

    Maneuverability
    8
    Performance
    9
    Range
    9
    Speed
    9
    Warhead
    9

    Average
    8.8 out of 10

    May 23, 2013
    1. livelonger

      The days of parking a carrier fleet nearby is coming to an end. That also puts a damper on building more carrier fleets. The subsidy of carrier fleets to maintain employment will change to smaller ‘stealth’ craft. Iran has the same missiles to counter plans to sit fleets in Hormuz straits.

      May 23, 2013
      1. mrmacq

        300 klicks reaches the other side of cyprus
        and down to tel avive (sp?)
        might as well just keep them tied up to your docks
        hey…lots of razor blades possible here…
        yup
        if the dude assad has a mind too he could certianly go out with a bang
        giving his enemies one hell of a bloody nose in the process
        .
        course if i was a republican id be quipping about all that nuclear material given him by sadam
        (ah sometimes i kill me)

        May 23, 2013
  6. wirelessguru1

    They are already in war in the middle east!

    May 23, 2013
    1. livelonger

      Is that the well-known generic “they?”

      May 23, 2013
      1. wirelessguru1

        May 23, 2013
  7. Neighsayer

    super educational. Thanks, guys. I mean except you, Cordless.

    May 23, 2013