[QUOTE=Chernarus;37184354]Tactical nuclear weapons would most likely be used.. 3 carriers in radius of one small nuclear blast is too good a target to pass up.[/QUOTE]
Yeah except whoever launched it would be assraped by the remaining carriers.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;37185308]Yeah except whoever launched it would be assraped by the remaining carriers.[/QUOTE]
Then nuke all of them 10x over? Welcome to the reality of WMD's.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37185323]Then nuke all of them 10x over? Welcome to the reality of WMD's.[/QUOTE]
Russia and the US aren't going to suddenly unleash their stockpiles because their navies had a skirmish. Besides modern carrier complements don't carry nuclear weapons, and tactical nukes are basically obsolete. No active units have tactical nuclear weapons available. So if our navies did come down to a shitflinging contest, it'd be more of a khalkin-gol type situation. A skirmish. Somebody comes away with a bloody nose. Breeds discontent for a few years.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37183971]Wouldn't B2 bombers kill a load of civilians due to the nature of tightly packed urban area and how bombs usually tend to have large blast radius?[/QUOTE]
20 years ago our bombs and missiles were pinpoint accurate:
[IMG]http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/DN-SC-93-03887-e1295034908291.jpg[/IMG]
Today they are far better.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37183971]Wouldn't B2 bombers kill a load of civilians due to the nature of tightly packed urban area and how bombs usually tend to have large blast radius?[/QUOTE]
You can land tomahawks and JDAMs through the window of your choice.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37184354]Tactical nuclear weapons would most likely be used.. 3 carriers in radius of one small nuclear blast is too good a target to pass up.[/QUOTE]
Or just use anti-carrier weapons, no one in Russia is going to be idiotic enough to just go "lmao yeah let's just nuke some American ships it's not like anyone'll miss them or care right?"
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;37185465]You can land tomahawks and JDAMs through the window of your choice.[/QUOTE]
Even those really short and wide windows they have in bathrooms?
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37183928]I thought Russia was supplying air defence weapons to Syria, and Russian base has naval aircraft on the ships stationed there. IE Russia won't let this happen.[/QUOTE]
The US has the ability to completely destroy anything Russia can deploy there and they know that.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37184364]I guess it's time to go into another war to advance American imperial interests.
Fuck yea America.[/QUOTE]
I guess it's a time to be a fucking retard as well.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37183971]Wouldn't B2 bombers kill a load of civilians due to the nature of tightly packed urban area and how bombs usually tend to have large blast radius?[/QUOTE]
It's called CDE or Collateral Damage Estimate. Dropping dumb bombs is the most illogical way of eliminating a target, unless the CDE call is at its lowest. If the CDE call is high then bombs with JDAM or Paveway capabilities are taken into consideration, and then weaponeered to meet the ROE. For example with a hellfire you can send it through the windshield of a truck, and have it detonate inside, without harming any civilians that are standing 10 feet away. As for bombs, the munition would have to be mitigated to minimize or completely divert civilian casualties.
[QUOTE=Jsm;37184479]Surely this wont help that much, from what I understand the Syrian government are using ground forces equally if not more than air power.
Unless of course they mean the "new" definition of NFZ that has been used lately.[/QUOTE]
Actually Syria's air force is very active in fighting the FSA.
7/26/12 Syrian Air Campaign
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d41_1343390641"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d41_1343390641[/URL]
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=413_1343203429"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=413_1343203429[/URL]
Bombing of Aleppo 8/4/12
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d4_1344131615"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6d4_1344131615[/URL]
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=190_1344037101"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=190_1344037101[/URL]
Bombing in Damascus 8/7/12
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c1_1344360234"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c1_1344360234[/URL]
Bombing of Aleppo 8/8/12
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=118_1344455540"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=118_1344455540[/URL]
Mi-2 attack
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=491_1337725908"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=491_1337725908[/URL]
Mi-24 attack
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a9_1340756355"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a9_1340756355[/URL]
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5f_1340605888"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c5f_1340605888[/URL]
Mi-25 attack
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f32_1307759675"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f32_1307759675[/URL]
Syrian Mi-8s ferrying troops to neighborhoods
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f40_1337360910"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f40_1337360910[/URL]
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=484_1338417949"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=484_1338417949[/URL]
[URL="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=020_1340767909"]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=020_1340767909[/URL]
There is also a ton of footage on youtube.
[video=youtube;NAEx7UAlZzc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEx7UAlZzc[/video]
[video=youtube;cOcOdsmbQgU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOcOdsmbQgU[/video]
[QUOTE=scout1;37185300]Yes we get so much oil and have so much political clout in fucking Libya don't we[/QUOTE]
France, Italy, and Spain definitely stood to benefit from Libya.
[editline]11th August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;37185929]I guess it's a time to be a fucking retard as well.[/QUOTE]
Well it's not exactly retarded. The USA has made some mistakes, but NATO as a whole is definitely getting the hang of the whole "oust political leaders we don't agree with and put in people who will bend to our interests" thing. It's a whole lot more subtle now, and terrifyingly effective.
[editline]11th August 2012[/editline]
I wouldn't call it retarded, I would call it heinous.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37185887]The US has the ability to completely destroy anything Russia can deploy there and they know that.[/QUOTE]
I laughed. You are sure exaggerating. That will be a good idea on US part to attack Russian ships in the Syrian zone.
[QUOTE=Azaz3l;37186366]I laughed. You are sure exaggerating. That will be a good idea on US part to attack Russian ships in the Syrian zone.[/QUOTE]
Although it would be a stupid idea to start a skirmish in the first place. He is rather right. Russia's navy is a pale shadow of its former self but obviously shooting at it won't make anything better.
[QUOTE=galenmarek;37186408]Although it would be a stupid idea to start a skirmish in the first place. He is rather right. Russia's navy is a pale shadow of its former self but obviously shooting at it won't make anything better.[/QUOTE]
Of course US naval forces are superior to the Russian ones. Russia's navy was completely fucked after the fall of USSR, but it isn't in the same state, as it was 15 years ago. Saying that US completely dominates the sea is exaggerated.
[QUOTE=Azaz3l;37186618]Of course US naval forces are superior to the Russian ones. Russia's navy was completely fucked after the fall of USSR, but it isn't in the same state, as it was 15 years ago. [b]Saying that US completely dominates the sea is exaggerated.[/b][/QUOTE]
No it isn't.
I don't see anyone who can stand up to the USN. Do you?
I've never understood this forums massive misconceptions about nuclear war. A carrier does not use nuclear weapons unless given the goahead launch codes from STAVKA.
[editline]11th August 2012[/editline]
[img]http://newwars.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/carriers-2010.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37185887]The US has the ability to completely destroy anything Russia can deploy there and they know that.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that I doubt Russia would enter a conflict with the US over a third world desolate hole of a country, even if it is one of their largest arms consumer.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
And vice-versa, come to think of it.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37188509]Not to mention that I doubt Russia would enter a conflict with the US over a third world desolate hole of a country, even if it is one of their largest arms consumer.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
And vice-versa, come to think of it.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing with you, but people always forget that Russia also has a naval base in Syria, giving them access to the Mediterranean which they don't want to lose
[QUOTE=smurfy;37188668]I'm not arguing with you, but people always forget that Russia also has a naval base in Syria, giving them access to the Mediterranean which they don't want to lose[/QUOTE]
Can't they sail ships through the Bosphorus all they want? Except that is a NATO choke point so...
But seriously, they stand to lose a LOT more if they keep sticking with Assad, like their precious naval base.
Surely to lower the collateral damage risk they could use those things the French used in Libya? Kinetic penetrators or something, ie giant lumps of bomb shaped concrete.
This seems like a good way to unnecessarily piss off Russia
[QUOTE=Jsm;37189872]Surely to lower the collateral damage risk they could use those things the French used in Libya? Kinetic penetrators or something, ie giant lumps of bomb shaped concrete.[/QUOTE]
That was really just to save money but yeah probably
[QUOTE=Azaz3l;37186366]I laughed. You are sure exaggerating. That will be a good idea on US part to attack Russian ships in the Syrian zone.[/QUOTE]
There would be losses and the Russians can easily sweep aside many countries navies, however they know the US could destroy them in open naval combat. The US right now has the largest and most advanced navy in the world, that is not bias, that is facts.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37192230]There would be losses and the Russians can easily sweep aside many countries navies, however they know the US could destroy them in open naval combat. The US right now has the largest and most advanced navy in the world, that is not bias, that is factions.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
There would be losses and the Russians can easily sweep aside many countries navies, however they know the US could destroy them in open naval combat. The US right now has the largest and most advanced navy in the world, that is not bias, that is facts.[/QUOTE]
Then they turn Syria into a VDV base of operations, paradrop in everything they need and setup Russian airbases.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37192261]Then they turn Syria into a VDV base of operations, paradrop in everything they need and setup Russian airbases.[/QUOTE]
And then they risk world war 3.
[editline]12th August 2012[/editline]
If Russians deployed into Syria, the US and NATO will ignore the UN and try and secure some land in Syria, it will end in the largest international cluster fuck and the closest we have gotten to world war since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
