14 Apr 2018, 8:12 am
14 Apr 2018, 9:36 am
14 Apr 2018, 12:53 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
Attacking the same ships that launched the attack?
They just wouldn't do that.
Iran doesn't have the capability of doing major damage to a NATO navy ship even if the NATO navy ship is in its own waters. The British,French, and American, ships that launched the attack were all in the Eastern Mediterreanean, far from the Persian Gulf. Even Russia would be a week intruder on NATO's surf and turf in that region. The ships were presumably parts of task forces with escorts. Attacking them would be like restaging a major naval battle of the Pacific in WWII (like Midway, or the Coral Sea). An act far bigger and way out of proportion to this rather narrow attack on Syria that it would be in response to. And it would start a war with all of NATO because it would be out and out act of war itself. We bloodied the nose of their ally. We didn't attack Russia and Iran themselves.So they would have no motive to retaliate on that scale, and probably wouldn't be in a postion to do so anyway , and it would be absurdly foolish for them to do so anyway.
They just wouldn't do that.
Iran doesn't have the capability of doing major damage to a NATO navy ship even if the NATO navy ship is in its own waters. The British,French, and American, ships that launched the attack were all in the Eastern Mediterreanean, far from the Persian Gulf. Even Russia would be a week intruder on NATO's surf and turf in that region. The ships were presumably parts of task forces with escorts. Attacking them would be like restaging a major naval battle of the Pacific in WWII (like Midway, or the Coral Sea). An act far bigger and way out of proportion to this rather narrow attack on Syria that it would be in response to. And it would start a war with all of NATO because it would be out and out act of war itself. We bloodied the nose of their ally. We didn't attack Russia and Iran themselves.So they would have no motive to retaliate on that scale, and probably wouldn't be in a postion to do so anyway , and it would be absurdly foolish for them to do so anyway.
Yes, but Russia probably has 13,000 thermonuclear warheads, compared to 9400 owned by the United States,
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=US ... arheads%3F
I prefer not to think what Putin could do to them if he was put in a situation with no way out
he is known to have a sharp temper, just like Trump 
14 Apr 2018, 1:59 pm
pawelk1986 wrote:
Yes, but Russia probably has 13,000 thermonuclear warheads, compared to 9400 owned by the United States,
What is the combined number of Nato?
pawelk1986 wrote:
I prefer not to think what Putin could do to them if he was put in a situation with no way out
he is known to have a sharp temper, just like Trump Putrid is a self-centred narcissist who wants to enjoy his dictatorship of Russia...
He isn't going to lose the privileges of his position for the sake of Syria...
Of course, he will be posturing as all these political ego-manics do, but it is simply chest-beating jingoistic rhetoric...
As long as his citizens aren't harmed, it is all laughable bluster...
I saw a documentary about Kim Jong-un yesterday where consensus was that the development of nuclear weaponry in North Korea was absolutely rational in terms of vital self-defence...
Apparently, even this "fruit loop" has method to his madness...
As long as Nato is extremely caution in regards to collateral damage, there will be no war...
Remember, Russia is nowhere near the military strength it was during the first cold war, and that is what rankles many Putrid-ists...
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Apr 2018, 3:31 pm
14 Apr 2018, 3:43 pm
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
14 Apr 2018, 3:50 pm
Pepe wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Why are you considering it an illegal attack?
I thought the same...
It is retaliation for crimes against humanity...
Or maybe Trump wants to distract the world from the Stormy Daniels scandal.
14 Apr 2018, 4:40 pm
14 Apr 2018, 5:05 pm
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
15 Apr 2018, 1:13 am
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
15 Apr 2018, 1:29 am
15 Apr 2018, 3:19 am
pawelk1986 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Attacking the same ships that launched the attack?
They just wouldn't do that.
Iran doesn't have the capability of doing major damage to a NATO navy ship even if the NATO navy ship is in its own waters. The British,French, and American, ships that launched the attack were all in the Eastern Mediterreanean, far from the Persian Gulf. Even Russia would be a week intruder on NATO's surf and turf in that region. The ships were presumably parts of task forces with escorts. Attacking them would be like restaging a major naval battle of the Pacific in WWII (like Midway, or the Coral Sea). An act far bigger and way out of proportion to this rather narrow attack on Syria that it would be in response to. And it would start a war with all of NATO because it would be out and out act of war itself. We bloodied the nose of their ally. We didn't attack Russia and Iran themselves.So they would have no motive to retaliate on that scale, and probably wouldn't be in a postion to do so anyway , and it would be absurdly foolish for them to do so anyway.
They just wouldn't do that.
Iran doesn't have the capability of doing major damage to a NATO navy ship even if the NATO navy ship is in its own waters. The British,French, and American, ships that launched the attack were all in the Eastern Mediterreanean, far from the Persian Gulf. Even Russia would be a week intruder on NATO's surf and turf in that region. The ships were presumably parts of task forces with escorts. Attacking them would be like restaging a major naval battle of the Pacific in WWII (like Midway, or the Coral Sea). An act far bigger and way out of proportion to this rather narrow attack on Syria that it would be in response to. And it would start a war with all of NATO because it would be out and out act of war itself. We bloodied the nose of their ally. We didn't attack Russia and Iran themselves.So they would have no motive to retaliate on that scale, and probably wouldn't be in a postion to do so anyway , and it would be absurdly foolish for them to do so anyway.
Yes, but Russia probably has 13,000 thermonuclear warheads, compared to 9400 owned by the United States,
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=US ... arheads%3F
I prefer not to think what Putin could do to them if he was put in a situation with no way out
he is known to have a sharp temper, just like Trump you're worried about the right thing, but for the wrong reason because you have no sense of proportionality.
The US (and its allies) makes a surgical attack on a client regime at the outer edge of Putin's sphere of influence. Pops a zit on the face of ...something that is itself just a zit, on Putin's face. Were not chopping his arm off.
Obviously Putin doesn't like it. But he is not gonna go all out with his nukes just for this.
BUT.
He might well retaliate in proportional way, that would be ...just a little bit nastier than what we did to his client. Pop a bigger zit on a bigger zit on our face. Do something to our sphere of influence, maybe do something to one of our allies. And then this might prompt an escalating exchange of tit for tat...and THEN ...who knows? It could escalate between the superpowers.
15 Apr 2018, 7:25 am
15 Apr 2018, 2:14 pm
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
15 Apr 2018, 2:51 pm
15 Apr 2018, 3:11 pm
