From shamireader


Aggression was over the Moment those Two Missiles were Fired

A well informed diplomatic source told As-Safir newspaper that “the US war on Syria had started and ended the moment those two ballistic missiles were fired, leaving inconsistent information, as Israel denied and Russia confirmed, until an Israeli statement was issued indicating they were fired in the context of an Israeli-US joint drill and fell in the sea, and that they were not related to the Syrian crisis.”


The source further told the Lebanese daily that “the US forces fired these two rockets from a NATO base in Spain, and were instantly detected by the Russian radars and confronted by the Russian defense systems, so one of them exploded in the airspace and the second one diverted towards the sea.”

In this context, the source pointed out that “the statement issued by the Russian Defense Ministry, which stated the detection of two ballistic missiles fired towards the Middle East, intended to neglect two points: the first was the location from which the two rockets were fired, and the second was their downing. Why? Because the moment the full military operation was launched, Head of the Russian Intelligence Service contacted the US intelligence and informed it that “hitting Damascus means hitting Moscow, and we have removed the term “downed the two missiles” from the statement to preserve the bilateral relations and to avoid escalation. Therefore, you must immediately reconsider your policies, approaches and intentions on the Syrian crisis, as you must be certain that you cannot eliminate our presence in the Mediterranean.”

“This unannounced direct confrontation between Moscow and Washington increased the Obama Administration’s confusion and certainty that the Russian side was ready to move until the end with the Syrian cause, and that the US did not have a way out of its impasse except through a Russian initiative which would save America’s face…” he added.

From this point, the diplomatic source clarified that “in order to avoid further US confusion, and after Israel denied knowing anything about the rocket firing in its first statement, which is the truth, Washington demanded Tel Aviv to adopt the rocket firing to save its face in front of the International Community, especially since these two rockets were the beginning of the US aggression on Syria and the announcement of the beginning of military operations, after which US President Barack Obama was supposed to go to the G20 Summit in Russia to negotiate the destiny of Syrian President Bashr Al-Assad. However, he went to find a way out of the impasse he’s in.”

The source further indicated that “after the US-Russia rocket confrontation, Moscow intended to increase its number of military experts in Russia, and added to its military units and destroyers to enhance its military presence in the Mediterranean. It also set a time for announcing about its initiative on stopping the aggression on Syria after the G20 Summit, after drawing a side scene on the sidelines of the summit which was followed by two successive visits for Iranian Foreign Minister, Hussein Amir Abdul Lahyan, and Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid Al-Moallem, in which a way out was agreed on with the Russian side, and it included a Syrian announcement on approving the Russian initiative regarding putting Syrian chemical weapons under international supervision and preparing Syria for joining the non-proliferation treaty.

Finally, the source pointed out that “One of the first results of the US-Russian military confrontation was the British House of Commons’ rejection to participate in a war on Syria. This was followed by European stances, most significantly, the German stance announced by Chancellor Angela Merkel."





Israel's bitch has no teeth.

Source: http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=110043&cid=31&fromval=1&frid=31&seccatid=71&s1=1

Sounds like a bunch of bull to me.  It is at least 2300 nautical miles from Spain to Syria.  Long range ballistic missiles (non orbital) travel at sub sonic speeds or the air resistance would require them to carry too much fuel.  At sub sonic speeds such missiles would take at least 3 hours to reach their target.  I am not sure that the US has any S2S missile with that range. By the time Russian ships in the eastern med detected anything it would be too late to do much about it.  Russia are nowhere near capable of intercepting a sub orbital rocket, ICBM not even close.  They might be able to take out a cruise missile in flight given enough warning, but I doubt that an atmospheric missile exists with a 2300 mile range.

This Russia Today report does not suggest Spain had anything to do with this incident

Oh, I see.  Russia doesn't have technology.  :thinking:

No, it doesn't.  It is extremely complex and difficult to shoot down an ICBM.

There are only two systems in the world that can intercept ICBMs. Besides them, many smaller systems exist (tactical ABMs), that generally cannot intercept intercontinental strategic missiles, even if within range.  An incoming ICBM simply moves too fast for these systems.

The Russian A-35 anti-ballistic missile system, for defence of Moscow, is called A-135 and uses Gorgon and Gazelle missiles with nuclear warheads.  It is NOT deployed on any Russian naval vessel.

The article you opened with does not claim the missiles came from Spain, nor indeed that the Russians claim to have shot them down.  If the Russians had shot down a long range ballistic missile, the only known technology for them to have done this would be a nuclear explosion in the stratosphere, so powerful that it can disrupt and disable (some of the time) a missile travelling at 18,000 miles per hour or about 5 miles every second, hence the need for a nuclear blast to take it out of action, because you cannot get close enough to hit it with anything kinetic or conventional.

I think that a nuclear blast in space or the endoatmosphere would have been noticed by more than a few people on the ground.

Either start using your brain and the known science and technology which would support or disprove these "news" stories to judge their veracity or change your username to credulous.

Something is not "true" simply because it fits your myopic view of the world.

Why would a US submarine launch a ballistic missile off the coast of Spain when the US has a fleet of 5 AB class destroyers anchored off the coast of Syria?  Each one carries 56 Tomahawk cruise missiles.  They would be in Damascus so fast that no missile defence system could be deployed in time and more to the point they are extremely difficult to detect because they travel so close to the ground.

13,000 mph or 18,000 mph makes no difference.  You chose a slower ICBM but it's the same order of magnitude.  No technology that the Russians have is going to be able to take that out short of a nuclear explosion.  It is WAY too fast, regardless of which speed you pick, to hit it with anything else.

But hey, don't let logic, rationality and common-sense cloud your view of the world.  Why change the habit of a lifetime?

So they would accomplish a first strike with just two non-nuclear ballistic missiles?  I assume they were not intending to nuke Syria in order to demonstrate to Assad their dislike of his supposed use of chemical weapons?  Even the hawks on Fox might find that a little disproportionate wouldn't you say?

Militarily speaking isn't that analogous to starting a fight in a biker bar with a bitch-slap?

What happened to "shock and awe"?

I would assume that US military strategists would be aware of Russian or Syrian missile defence capabilities and therefore not launch a "first strike" that could be so easily defeated.

Keep going.  You are making a fool of yourself by showing your incapacity to reason things out.

You said Syria was 2,000 miles away from Spain and too far away
to accomplish a first strike?

No I did not say that.  I simply reasoned out what their missile options were if they were to and saw that there was no rational reason to launch it from Spain since they had a fleet of destroyers and submarines 100 miles off the coast of Syria.  A supersonic cruise missile would get from the destroyer to Damascus in 10 mins.  The same time as an ICBM would take to get from Spain.  So why use an ICBM which are easier to detect rather than the more stealthy and cheaper cruise missile?

Again you are misquoting me, as other members of this forum are want to do.

Oh, I forgot to say thanks for posting this the other day

I can't stand ggreg, but he is mostly right on this one guys. This test may have been conducted as a show of force but it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that this was a shoot down by the Russians.

It makes absolutely no sense for them to launch missiles from Spain. They US government would have been required to get permission from the Spanish parliament to initiate military action from their territory. It would have had to be public and would have had absolutely no tactical surprise at all.

A Tomahawk cruise missile is nearly impossible to detect or shoot down, even for the Russians, it is a tiny fraction of the cost of an SLBM, and it delivers it's payload much more precisely. Plus it is sea-launched, which allows for tactical surprise.

An unannounced ICBM launch would have lit up Russian defence radar like a Christmas tree and initiated a massive retaliation from Moscow. That is why each side announces ICBM tests before they are done, to prevent any misunderstandings. The missiles in this test were not ICBM's and were not launched at Syria.

Only idiots with absolutely no understanding of any of this would believe any of this crap.