Russia, Iran and china ( a little) have all said that if the us attacks Syrian chemical weapons, and delivery systems. That they will retaliate. I personally am 50/50 on this. It’s been a long time coming for a world war. However at the same time as bad as the national debt is I believe the United States would win with the help of our allies against a Russia/china/Iran power. Unless of course it went nuclear, even then. Think the us would win, but the world would be over at that point. Anyhow my question is does anyone really think there will be any state sponsored retaliation? If so who? And what? And if say Russia shoots down a drone, or cruse missle will china, and Iran follow suit? Then what does Obama do? What if Iran says screw it and launches missiles at tel aviv and Israel fights back, do we have to help them? Should we be scared of the Chinese navy? If a non nuclear world war three starts, and America/ NATO wins. What does that mean for the world going forward?
I hadn’t heard of Russia or China saying they would retaliate. Could you provide a cite? If Russia didn’t fight back when we invaded Serbia, they certainly won’t fight back over a few missiles thrown at Syria. And China, much less so: it’s so far out of their sphere of interest.
That Iran might get crazy is not impossible. That Israel might over-react is also not impossible, but fairly unlikely. Even a worst case – Israel flattens Tehran – would probably not spiral up into a US/Russia/China nuclear exchange.
This isn’t 1914. Some escalation is possible, but an insane spiral up into world devastation just simply ain’t gonna happen.
(Heh. If it does, I won’t be around to hear you say “Told you!”)
I haven’t heard anything about Russia or China threatening to retaliate, so as with Trinopus I need to see a cite with some context. I seriously doubt either of them are threatening any such thing, especially for the rather limited strikes we MIGHT throw at the Syrians. Iran threatens to retaliate on our ass constantly, so nothing new there. If the wind blows a certain way they threaten to retaliate against us and bring down the wrath of their mighty forces on our heads. Talk is cheap though, and they get a certain amount of local play as well as regional cred for talking tough against big, bad America. If they actually do anything, including if they are caught red handed helping terrorist do something then it’s not going to be pretty, and I figure they know the score on that as well as anyone does. I doubt they would shed many tears if some suicide bomber types took a shot at us, but their hands will be clean.
Not a chance.
Russia and China aren’t going to confront the US directly over Syria. Even if we were idiotic enough to stage forces and try another invasion adventure they aren’t going to do more than view gravely or perhaps, if they are REALLY pissed, monkey with trade deals or even embargo US goods. It would be something along those lines, not anything military oriented. Iran isn’t going to do anything direct either, though I could see them egging on Hamas if we DID invade. Hell, they will probably rile up their pet terrorists even if we just do air strikes, but nothing that puts their finger prints on anything.
Not a chance in hell with this go nuclear…or even conventional. It’s simply not going to happen.
Nope. No way.
No chance Russia or China do anything…physical.
Well, ok, Russia might try to step into something to make us blink or give them the opportunity to fire a couple of shots to try to embarass us, but nothing more than that. Three Russian ships at the bottom of the Med isn’t a good esteem building exercise for Mr. Putin.
Yeah, we could always deploy our army of trolls.
Which of course a full scale war would, within a week or less, so forget it.
If war happens . . . does that mean we can’t eat Chinese food?! 
Nah, it just becomes freedom fried rice
The chance of a war with Russia or China is almost zero. The ‘almost’ caveat added because wars have been known to start when neither side wants it - for example, when bluster and bluffing backs leaders into a corner and things escalate, or when the fog of combat causes mistakes that force retaliation for political reasons. You can imagine a U.S. attack accidentally taking out a crew of Russian advisors, or a mistake from a ground-to-air missile station shooting down a Russian jet by accident, as the U.S.S Vincennes accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner during the Iran/Iraq war when tensions were high.
But the more likely result is that Syria simply becomes a proxy war, with Russia supporting Assad and feeding arms to him while the U.S. does the same with the rebels.
A bigger risk is that Assad does something stupid like giving WMD to Hezbollah and Hezbollah attacks U.S. interests with it somewhere, or goes after Israel in an attempt to deflect attention from Syria and from Iran’s nuclear program. Another risk is that the U.S. attack winds up killing a lot of civilians in a very graphic way, or the Syrians manage to fake a supposed civilian massacre from a U.S. weapon, and the U.S. take a big diplomatic hit on the world stage.
I’m on the fence when it comes to whether the U.S. should attack Syria, but it’s folly to think a retributive attack can be carried out cleanly with no possibility of blowback or error.
The world was very lucky that the shooting down of the Korean Air Lines passenger jet in 1983 happened during a period of reduced tensions. If it had coincided with a major crisis… Well, who knows. Scary thought, anyway.
But, right now, there really aren’t any major tensions, no boiling kettles. Iran and North Korea are trouble spots, but well under containment. Russia and China have their ambitions, but they seem willing to play the long game.
Even if we hit Syria, Syria hits Israel, Israel hits Syria, Iran hits Israel, Israel hits Iran… It doesn’t seem too likely that it would burst beyond those limits. (Bad enough, to be sure.)
What’s about the worst imaginable possibility? Iran smuggles a dirty nuke to Miami… Okay, we take out Iran… Russia and China wouldn’t launch against us. There’s simply nothing for them to gain by it.
China has very little ability to project force beyond their own territory, without using nukes. Even if they wanted to do something, there’s not a lot they can do via conventional means.
Russia is not going to get into a shooting war with the U.S. over Syria.
Iran…is simply not a global player. At most, they could potentially attack U.S. targets in the area, but doing so would invite regime change in their own country. They aren’t going to risk that.
‘Retaliation’ may come in many forms, none involves blowing shit up.
Obama’s doing a great job of pushing China and Russia closer together, though.
They already share a 2600 mile border. How much closer can they get?
I think Russia and China have been getting along swimmingly since 1991.
No prompting from Obama is needed.
Have a more subtle reading:
Read it. What is the subtle take-away? That Russia and China are in military exercises? So what. China is Russia’s biggest military weapons importer. They share a huge border and occupy the biggest areas of Asia. It would be odd if they did not have some in common geo-political concerns. But despite all that , they do not trust one another and have not for a very long time. China has no interest in the middle east. Russia has only one, that’s Syria. I’m not even sure to what extent Russia cares about Syria. America has been meddling in the middle east for much longer than China and Russia have been cordial. How is Obama going to be (more) responsible for whatever relations China and Russia continue to maintain?
So, “Syria” is properly spelled with a “V”?
Well, I don’t think there’s any chance that it would turn into a Vietnam, but it could be a proxy war in the sense that Russia and the U.S. would wind up on opposing sides, with both trying to exit the conflict with their geopolitical situation improved. If Russia provides arms to the Assad regime and Assad eventually ‘wins’, Russia’s influence in the region will increase and America’s standing will be diminished somewhat. Depending on how both sides perceive the magnitude of their gain/loss on the world stage it could drive the conflict longer and the interventions greater in order to ‘win’.
I’m sympathetic to Obama’s argument that doing nothing in Syria after drawing a ‘red line’ will embolden other bad actors because their fear of U.S. reprisal will diminish. I think that’s a very valid concern. But I would also be concerned that an attempt to ‘punish’ Assad while overtly promising that the punishment won’t mean anything is A) self-defeating, and B) runs a risk of an escalation that the U.S. would still back down from, causing an even greater loss of face and deterrent power. And of course, there’s always the risk of unconventional retaliation. Hezbollah has stayed largely confined to the Middle East. If it is released to attack American interests around the world, that would be a very bad outcome.
It’s a tough situation, but it didn’t have to be this way. Red lines shouldn’t be drawn in public - they should be issued in backroom negotiations to leave room for either side to back down without losing face if the situation warrants it. If you’re going to retaliate, you don’t announce in public that your retaliation will mean nothing or change the calculus of the war. You don’t announce you’re going to retaliate well in advance, or you risk allowing your geopolitical rivals time to develop counter-strategies. The Obama administration has made all these mistakes, and now has put itself in a box that has no easy exit, and the only options left available are ‘bad’ and ‘less bad’.
… Svria? 
:smack:
Afghanistan is the new 'Nam.
For me, the worst imaginable possibility is the same plot of every terrorist movie made in the last 20 years: all the actors in this situation have a large supply of moles in the US, and they’re all prepared to start blowing up buses and dams and electrical grids and whatever else suits their fancy. I don’t think the average American is really worried about whether or not Syria bombs Syrians, chemical weapons or not. They’re worried that they’re going to bomb Chicago.