Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
U.S. suspending contact with Russia over Syria conflict
#1
U.S. suspending contact with Russia over Syria conflict
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#2
And if Clinton gets in, she's going to respond to Russian cyberattacks on information with cyberattacks on physical targets in Russia. Crisis war coming up.
Reply
#3
(10-04-2016, 09:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: And if Clinton gets in, she's going to respond to Russian cyberattacks on information with cyberattacks on physical targets in Russia. Crisis war coming up.

No, that won't happen. It's Trump who is trigger happy, not Hillary Clinton. A cyber war does not necessarily escalate into a physical war.

The Crisis War is most likely to be domestic, between the red and blue.

But a foreign crisis war is already heating up. Most likely, I don't see another war besides the current one coming. We'll probably be cleaning up the terrorist threat for the rest of the 4T. Syria, the subject of this thread's conflict, seems unlikely to be resolved any time soon. But I have predicted a breakthrough if Hillary wins in 2017. We'll see how far it goes.

Another kind of foreign crisis war would be most likely to happen if Trump wins. Or another candidate like him. If we pull out of NATO, or fail to guarantee our support to nations that don't pay up, that will be a major temptation for Putin to invade Estonia, and off we go. In any case, Putin remains a dangerous player, and the end of 2020 may see a war caused by a Russian incursion. But this won't involve the USA for at least 5 years.

Another concern is North Korea. If the US feels compelled to attack, due to some provocation, then China could declare war on the USA, and that could also tempt Russia to support China, and Europe/NATO to support the USA.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#4
(10-04-2016, 10:53 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:
(10-04-2016, 09:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: And if Clinton gets in, she's going to respond to Russian cyberattacks on information with cyberattacks on physical targets in Russia.  Crisis war coming up.

Were you aware that the Russian rules of engagement are to respond to any major cyber attack with WMD?

The potential for Russian escalation is exactly why Clinton should not be proposing cyber attacks on physical targets, which are more likely to be considered "major".  She'll escalate us straight into a war with the only nuclear power that can stand up to us.

(10-04-2016, 06:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-04-2016, 09:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: And if Clinton gets in, she's going to respond to Russian cyberattacks on information with cyberattacks on physical targets in Russia.  Crisis war coming up.

No, that won't happen. It's Trump who is trigger happy, not Hillary Clinton. A cyber war does not necessarily escalate into a physical war.

It's Clinton who is saying she'll do it.

Since it's mostly leftists here I'll quote a leftist source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/pol....html?_r=0
Quote:“They are at it all the time,” she said of the Chinese state-sponsored hackers. But she also seemed to suggest — more directly than she did in Monday night’s debate — that she thinks the best deterrent to the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and the North Koreans, all of whom she named, was a dose of American offensive cyberweaponry.

“They have physical assets that are also connected on the internet,” she said. “So they have to know we would retaliate...." [emphasis mine]

Of course the Clintons are the ones who like generals who are willing to order attacks on the Russians:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-11753050

Fortunately the Clinton appointee's British subordinate refused to "start WWIII" for him - that time.  Next time we may not be so lucky.
Reply
#5
(10-04-2016, 09:58 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:
Quote:
Quote:And if Clinton gets in, she's going to respond to Russian cyberattacks on information with cyberattacks on physical targets in Russia.  Crisis war coming up.

No, that won't happen. It's Trump who is trigger happy, not Hillary Clinton. A cyber war does not necessarily escalate into a physical war.

It's Clinton who is saying she'll do it.

Since it's mostly leftists here I'll quote a leftist source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/pol....html?_r=0
Quote:“They are at it all the time,” she said of the Chinese state-sponsored hackers. But she also seemed to suggest — more directly than she did in Monday night’s debate — that she thinks the best deterrent to the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and the North Koreans, all of whom she named, was a dose of American offensive cyberweaponry.

“They have physical assets that are also connected on the internet,” she said. “So they have to know we would retaliate...." [emphasis mine]

The article suggested a stronger response to cyberattacks, and dialing back on other kinds of weapons. That's just what we need.

Quote:Of course the Clintons are the ones who like generals who are willing to order attacks on the Russians:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-11753050

Fortunately the Clinton appointee's British subordinate refused to "start WWIII" for him - that time.  Next time we may not be so lucky.

Not one mention of Hillary Clinton in that article, or even Bill Clinton.

Kosovo was an excellent example of how much better a Democrat runs a war than a Republican. Not one American soldier killed, and genocide turned back and defeated. Contrast that with the Iraq clusterfuck, and screwed-up Afghanistan.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#6
(10-05-2016, 11:11 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The article suggested a stronger response to cyberattacks, and dialing back on other kinds of weapons. That's just what we need.

So, you think we should escalate conflicts, while reducing our ability to fight any resulting war, thus tempting the other side to escalate as well.  No wonder crisis wars happen.
Reply
#7
(10-05-2016, 12:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-05-2016, 11:11 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The article suggested a stronger response to cyberattacks, and dialing back on other kinds of weapons. That's just what we need.

So, you think we should escalate conflicts, while reducing our ability to fight any resulting war, thus tempting the other side to escalate as well.  No wonder crisis wars happen.

The weapons Hillary wants to reduce are unnecessary and don't increase our strength. There's no excuse for the USA to buy and deploy expensive, useless weapons. Pence and Trump absurdly call for "rebuilding our military," when we already have more strength than all other powers combined. There is no supposed weakness or reduction in our ability to fight.

If other nations make cyberattacks against us, there's no reason to remain defenseless.  Putin's Russia is a bully and apparently can't be negotiated with. They lie and cheat. We can try to negotiate, but letting them get away with attacks is not a good option. Now they are over-running Syria because we haven't supported the democratic rebels enough. Pence called for bombing Assad targets. That may be necessary. But Trump wants to turn over the whole affair to Russia.

Syria is the one area where Republican charges of weakness by Obama are true. But Trump wants even more weakness, despite what Pence said.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#8
(10-05-2016, 01:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-05-2016, 12:29 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:
(10-05-2016, 11:11 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The article suggested a stronger response to cyberattacks, and dialing back on other kinds of weapons. That's just what we need.

So, you think we should escalate conflicts, while reducing our ability to fight any resulting war, thus tempting the other side to escalate as well.  No wonder crisis wars happen.

The weapons Hillary wants to reduce are unnecessary and don't increase our strength. There's no excuse for the USA to buy and deploy expensive, useless weapons. Pence and Trump absurdly call for "rebuilding our military," when we already have more strength than all other powers combined. There is no supposed weakness or reduction in our ability to fight.

If other nations make cyberattacks against us, there's no reason to remain defenseless.  Putin's Russia is a bully and apparently can't be negotiated with. They lie and cheat. We can try to negotiate, but letting them get away with attacks is not a good option. Now they are over-running Syria because we haven't supported the democratic rebels enough. Pence called for bombing Assad targets. That may be necessary. But Trump wants to turn over the whole affair to Russia.

Syria is the one area where Republican charges of weakness by Obama are true. But Trump wants even more weakness, despite what Pence said.

I think a lot more nuance is required.

The US is very good at conventional wars with front lines, tank divisions and the ability to declare 'victory' when you achieve a certain geographic objective.  We do indeed spent a heck of a lot of money and get considerable return from the buck.  This doesn't mean we should consider a D-Day style landing on a beach in mainland China.  There are opponents out there that have enough numbers and land to be problematic.  But for the most part we can go where we have to and do what we want to.

The US is less good at fighting an insurgency.  We can destroy the formal army, but if the people don't want us they can make staying there a pain.  Our land forces weren't large enough to cleanly pacify Iraq during Bush 43's years.  Iraq's population is about 38,000,000.  Syria's is around 17,000,000.  If we tried an all in occupation we might succeed in Syria where we overloaded our ground forces in Iraq.  Still, it isn't just the Syrian population we'd be concerned with.  Russia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and various regional islamists make the general population numbers questionable.  There would be proxy wars.

I still believe Powell's Questions should not be forgotten.  Is there a clear path to decisive victory?  Is there a exit strategy?  Will the American People back the move?  Is there genuine international support?  Throwing troops into an area when one hasn't got good answers to these questions is just escalating the quagmire.  The result is more guns, more bombs, more explosives, more death, more misery.  In an insurgent war, the primary path to victory is to break the will of the population.  This is being done by murdering civilians, by destroying property, by terror.  Escalating an insurgent conflict without a clear path to victory only escalates the pain and death.

Another oft forgotten factor is that much of the money spent by the US military is on logistics.  We want to be able to support a war effort anywhere in the world.  Our navy can sit off most coasts with impunity.  If we wanted to put land forces ashore and supply them we generally can.  Most nations have defensive armies with defensive capabilities perfectly suitable for protecting their own and some local meddling.  The US wants to meddle anywhere at any time with short notice.  This is expensive.

My career as a software engineer was spent supporting the Pentagon.  The project that best illustrates our acquisition problem was a satellite terminal mounted on the back of a small truck, a heavy hummvee.  They asked for too much, for more than could be done given the state of the art.  The truck could only carry so much weight.  The requirement was to put the generator on the truck, with a generator trailer forbidden.  There wasn't enough weight for both the generator and enough cooling to keep the electronics working, so we had to go with passive cooling.  They demanded enough communications throughput that too much heat was being produced.  There was a triangle trade off between heat, weight and power that had no good answers.  To meet the requirements, we ended up cutting corners on weight to the point the vehicle was borderline on meeting the shock tests.  There were lots of folk holding their breath as the expensive fragile things ran the monster truck style bumpy torture track.

This sort of thing is typical of military procurements.  They want something that can't be built quite yet.  Thus we have over runs and delays on projects like the USS Ford and F 35.  Regarding the satellite truck, we got the prototypes to work, but our bid to build production models was way high.  The nigh on impossible is expensive.  We lost the bid to another company that didn't understand how impossible the project was going to be.  It took the other company and the military a little more than a year to learn we were right.  The project was cancelled with lots of money totally wasted.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, we had troops accidentally pocket dialing their wives during fire fights.  Combat communications is an interesting problem these days.

So, yes, the basic Pentagon approach to procurement is way flawed.  Too many expensive high tech projects.  How much do we want to be able to take out small states like North Korea or Syria, fighting on their home turf?  How much do we want to be able to suppress insurrections, where there are no high tech shortcuts to putting lots of boots on the ground?  With Republican financial policies demanding ever lower taxes and servicing the debt eating large parts of the budget, the Pentagon just does't have available the same portion of the GNP they had during World War II and the Cold War.  Our military egos are still sized for a tax and spend economy, for the time America was Great, when today we have a crippled trickle down economy.  We simply can't do what we once could do.  Not acknowledging this reality contributed to Bush 43's financial crash.

I wish there were good answers to Powell's questions, a clean path to peace in the Middle East.  As I see it, there is no such path.  Obama might be judged weak by some for not spending American lives attempting the impossible, but I applaud his choice.  The Syrian situation is far worse than an impossible heat - weight - power trade off.  I suspect the hypothetical Clinton 45 administration will continue pushing.  Hillary is supposedly a stubborn wonk specializing in listening and persistence, but I suspect she'll have as tough a problem as president as she had as SecState.  I wish her luck, but hope she doesn't forget Powell's Questions.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise nebraska 0 452 01-22-2018, 07:29 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Tillerson signals deeper US military commitment in Syria nebraska 0 425 01-17-2018, 07:34 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  War in Syria? Where is Congress? nebraska 0 490 12-29-2017, 07:57 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Lawmakers Say Proof Lacking Before Trump Bombed Syria nebraska 0 386 12-27-2017, 03:46 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Freedom for Syria and Libya Eric the Green 22 7,540 02-14-2017, 03:42 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Vote Trump or die, says Russia. Einzige 3 2,567 10-12-2016, 09:57 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)