So, what is the solution? Do nothing? Rely upon the UN? Invade? Nuke them?
Obviously if we go for a measured response like bombing, mistakes will occur and innocents will die.
We do nothing? innocents will die.
UN? mistakes will occur and innocents will die.
Invade? mistakes will occur and innocents will die.
I would not assume Russians don’t have a submarine or two in the area as well. It would be foolish of them them not to.
But yeah, still not an overwhelming threat to US Navy presence.
Doing nothing (militarily, at least) sounds like the best option to me by far. It seems highly unlikely to me that we just happened to blow up the exact right buildings and people that would somehow make improvement of the situation more likely.
It was basically a very loud, expensive fart.
The Syrian oil is trivial, this is an ignorant thing to say. The Russian interest is in one word, Tartus.
[QUOTE=up_the_junction]
I guess Putin learned one thing and the world another; when push comes to shove Trump runs at great pace for orthodoxy (and his one great potential strength was the unexpected).
[/QUOTE]
We learned, years ago, that Putin is a murderous thug who will stop at nothing to get his way. We also learned that Russia is no better at propping up a state in the ME than the US was…but he sure is good at getting folks like you to push his propaganda. 
Well, leaving aside the ridiculous assertion that the US is or has been impotent in the region, the irony to me is that you would have bitched no matter what the US did, unless we did nothing at all, since it’s all a hoax anyway (Putin says so, must be true), or it’s really just Syria’s business…or some other handwaving excuse. US does what it did…impotent because we didn’t kill enough people, certainly showing we are weak. Trump goes over the top and destroys whole bases, attacks Syria’s air defenses with a suitable (to you I guess) body count? Well, US are horrific murderers who have no restraint and just want to kill brown people, blah blah blah. Just admit it…there is absolutely nothing the US could do that you would agree with, while Putin could personally shoot Syrian children in the street while standing on heaps of dead puppies and you’d still fawn over him and swallow his propaganda, hook, line and sinker while thinking that Assad fellow isn’t really so bad.
Undoubtedly they do. In addition in theatre, they have their own rather significant Air presence. This includes Su24 and Su34, both of which have Anti Ship capability and Su-34 has some pretty advanced EW gear. In addition, they have Tu-22 and Tu-95 bombers not far away in the Black Sea region which they could use to carry supersonic long range AShM missile and they can also launch them from the Caspian and Black sea fleets as they have done in Syria already. All this supported by their Ocean Recon Satellites.
So, they have assets which can make life very miserable very quickly for the USN in the region.
by your list you certainly do not.
I’d assume they do as well, though not as probable as you might think. The Russians certainly do have some attack subs, but they are pretty scarce these days, and this thing blew up pretty fast. At a guess they are going to have some on station at some point, but you don’t just move one of those instantly anywhere in the world.
The key thing here, though, is that neither the US nor the Russians REALLY want a direct confrontation, so I’m doubtful that the Russians are going to do anything to overt, especially as tense are things are now. They MIGHT try and play chicken, but it will be a very Russian way to do that…sort of like how they played chicken with our fighters and theirs a year or so ago (before we put into place protocols to minimize this…protocols that Putin SAYS he’s taking out, but we shall see).
The US has bases throughout the Med as well as the world. But just the carrier has more aircraft than all the Russian air assets you are listing here. I know you are trying to indicate that Russia has a formidable and credible force in Syria as well as it’s Black Seas assets, but you need to acknowledge that in any sort of real confrontation in the region the US far outnumbers everything the Russians have. And this doesn’t even count US allies in the region and area.
I’m not trying to downplay the Russians, but they just aren’t in the same league as the US anymore, especially when you count the US allies as well…which you would, if Russia actually directly attacked the USN in the Med. Like I said, no one wants that. Putin is playing his hand and putting up a tough front, and probably has every hope and expectation that if Syria doesn’t try any more gas attacks that the US will go back to the status quo wrt Assad…but if it comes down it, I don’t think he’d be prepared for even a limited, conventional war with the US (even if you could know that it would stay that way…which you couldn’t, especially with Trump at the helm).
I agree. This is a posturing show, not a confrontation. I just hope it doesn’t lead to mistakes that result in escalation and unintended consequences.
My hope is that Putin, while evil, is pragmatic, and that someone keeps Trump from flying off the deep end. I was very relieved when I saw what the US did in Syria…it would have been a disaster, IMHO, had we gone overboard and given up_the_junction the large body count he seems to have craved to show we aren’t weak or whatever. When I first heard the US had launched a missile attack I have to admit I was feeling pretty sick about what we could have done. Finding out that we had tried to get the Russians (and even the Syrians) out of the area first was actually a good thing, IMHO.
Now I just hope that cooler heads prevail.
During the Cold War, when Soviet naval task forces would sail into far waters, they were permitted to employ their nuclear warheads without permission from Moscow if they got into a shooting engagement :eek: (for instance during the Cuban Missile Crises, a submarine nearly did use its nuclear-armed Torpedo against a US Carrier), this was the exception to the otherwise tight leash Moscow kept on nukes. The point is, no one doubts the USN is like the Royal Navy of old, basically unmatched (at least until the Chinese decide to build a big fleet of their own ala Germany).
The Russians however here are not looking to defeat the USN, just deny operating ability near the Syrian coast, and that is something they do have the ability to do., for a while at least.
You are right of course, no one wants to see this escalate; since that will end with SS-18’s in Washington and Tridents in Moscow. However as the corpse of Franz Ferdinand can attest, small, seemingly unrelated actions can have far-reaching consequences. The danger is not that someone will push the button over Syria; the danger is that small steps, each on their own not high in the escalation ladder, will cumulatively lead to such a situation.
By the way, I think people are overplaying Obama’s restraint in September 2013. He was pretty ready to go ahead and strike hard if reluctant; it was the military that was hesitant.
Agreed on just about everything in here, especially the last.
Putin is evil, Trump is not. However, stupid and ignorant are reliable substitutes.
And the Republicans too.
Oh, I think Trump is evil enough…just not in the same way as Putin. And compared to Trump, Putin is an evil genius. Of course, compared to Trump a mentally challenged rabbit comes off way ahead as well.
Now that Putin knows that Trump can be provoked, my worry is that he’ll continue the provocation until he’s in a position to say to Trump, “We’ll stand down in Syria and agree to no fly zones if you start removing sanctions”.
Well…that sounds like it would be a good proposal to me. We WANT the Russians to get out of Syria, stop propping up Assad, and help with a political solution. If they could facilitate something like this, then I don’t see why we wouldn’t just drop the sanctions. Why does this worry you? What am I missing here? 
