Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on November 20, 2015, 02:45:37 pm
-
Greek coast guard 'deliberately' sunk migrant boat in Turkish waters (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/11803114/Greek-coast-guard-deliberately-sunk-migrant-boat-in-Turkish-waters-fishermans-film-alleges.html)
-
The Greeks and Turks have...very bad history, in the modern era.
-
They've had pretty bad history since, like, the tenth century.
-
So what's this I hear about the Greek military having a bunch of legit Nazis who have a wet dream about setting up a racially pure junta? and is there any threat of that actually happening?
-
The Greeks and Turks have...very bad history, in the modern era.
As multiple people of my acquaintance have said after visiting Greece: the country peaked early.
Their abysmal handling of the refugee crisis emphasizes that, though it hasn't helped that the collective EU as a whole can't get its **** together when it comes to borders, refugees, and a continental immigration policy.
-
While I'm not supporting the taking up refugees, the Greeks have gone a bit too far. That sort of thing is the easiest way for everyone to end up tangled in another war. If you're going to sink refugee boats, at least do it in your own waters, dolts...
As multiple people of my acquaintance have said after visiting Greece: the country peaked early.
Their abysmal handling of the refugee crisis emphasizes that, though it hasn't helped that the collective EU as a whole can't get its **** together when it comes to borders, refugees, and a continental immigration policy.
Well, Greece has been getting the short end of the stick lately and they're not happy about it (first it nearly went bankrupt and not it's getting swarmed with refugees on top of that). Not that I have much sympathy for them after they imprisoned two developers from my favorite game company, but in the current situation, the last thing we need is a bunch of what amounts to actual Nazis claiming to be on our side. They've been coming out of the woodwork since the economic crisis started, not only in the military.
-
I am all for tough measures against these migrants, but sinking boats full of people (even children) is not acceptable.
-
I finally gathered the courage to join this discussion - just in time for it to fizzle out. (Typical.) I was originally against accepting the refugees, but the arguments of Battuta et al. convinced me.
At the same time, I despise the taboo on the word "Muslim" and the knee-jerk PC response to attacks by Islamic radicals people of uncertain origin, whose motives had nothing to do with Islam.
I am all for tough measures against these migrants, but sinking boats full of people (even children) is not acceptable.
Not acceptable is an understatement. Monstrous is nearer the mark.
-
That's the sort of stuff you're going to see when people have had enough. This is why governments need to react and enact measures that they can control. Otherwise, people are just going to start enacting their own measures against what they perceive as unacceptable, which can't be controlled. This is true of any pressing issue. So now keep in mind that what you call monstrous has apparently become a fair game for a bunch of Greeks. Immigration needs to be curbed for immigrants' own sake at this point. And if the current government doesn't do anything about it by the next election, well, the next one will, probably not in a pleasant way (see why I'm not fond of democracies? It's easier to force a compromise on a difficult issue if majority can't just kick the whole government out and elect someone who promises to change things to be exactly the way the majority wants).
-
(see why I'm not fond of democracies? It's easier to force a compromise on a difficult issue if majority can't just kick the whole government out and elect someone who promises to change things to be exactly the way the majority wants).
That would be why most functioning democracies have a judicial system that's able to act as an oversight and prevent the tyranny of the majority.
-
That's the sort of stuff you're going to see when people have had enough. This is why governments need to react and enact measures that they can control. Otherwise, people are just going to start enacting their own measures against what they perceive as unacceptable, which can't be controlled. This is true of any pressing issue.
Such as? Having black people in the country? Giving women the vote? Allowing homosexuality?
All of those were things that were (and for some people still are) unacceptable in various democracies. Should the governments have caved in to the majority on those issues too?
-
Notice that these when these things were thought unacceptable, it was the government that needed to be convinced of them. They did cave in to the majority - by allowing those changes. "Some people" you mentioned simply found themselves in minority when the change happened (although not by a huge margin). Notice that in none of those cases the government just thought "Hey, we're giving women the right to vote!" or such. No, there were lengthy campaigns on each of those issues that were a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If the government persisted in its misogyny/homophobia/racism it'd run a big risk of getting itself voted out. And yes, if they did persist, I'd imagine people would eventually get desperate and violent. In fact, of those three issues you mentioned, only gay marriage went through without notable violence. Both female suffrage in Britain and end of apartheid in South Africa weren't exactly achieved in a non-violent manner.
That would be why most functioning democracies have a judicial system that's able to act as an oversight and prevent the tyranny of the majority.
That's a theory. In practice, I noticed that when things go south, this rarely helps. Democracy only really works when the majority does see minority's point and wants to respect its rights (the case with most Western countries, at least to date). In places where mutual respect is too much to ask for, tyranny of the majority is the common result.
-
Now explain to us why having a single unelected and unaccountable leader is better.
-
That's the sort of stuff you're going to see when people have had enough. This is why governments need to react and enact measures that they can control. Otherwise, people are just going to start enacting their own measures against what they perceive as unacceptable, which can't be controlled. This is true of any pressing issue.
Such as? Having black people in the country? Giving women the vote? Allowing homosexuality?
If those things were truly unacceptable to significant majority of people, no amount of judicial/constitutional protections would have helped. People would just vote for a party that changes the constitution to fit their vision. The truth is, only a minority of people disagree with them, and those who disagree simply do not care enough to put such things before other issues more important for them. This may very well not be the case when it comes to current crisis - according to the Eurobarometer poll from july, migration crisis is the top issue facing Europe right now (overtaking such staples as economy/unemployment), and most people view accepting more migrants in a negative way (with the sole exception of Sweden - yeah, the stereotype seems to be true in this case ;) ). I dont expect any government or law which goes against the wishes of the people in this matter to survive for very long. Definitely not in the bright red states in the map below.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5451_en.htm#_ftn1
http://www.voxeurop.eu/en/content/news-brief/4932007-map-showing-eu-countries-attitude-towards-foreign-immigration
(just a note: from my discussions with Polish people, the likely reason why Poland isnt bright red like the rest of V4 on that map is because the question asked was in general about immigrants from outside EU, not specifically muslim immigrants, and for Poles such a formulation evokes Ukrainians first, which are pretty accepted in Poland)
-
Notice that these when these things were thought unacceptable, it was the government that needed to be convinced of them. They did cave in to the majority - by allowing those changes.
You are already wrong at this point. Gay marriage for instance was brought up and defeated in several referendums. Which basically means that the government had enough backing to put it to a referendum but the general population disagreed.
No, there were lengthy campaigns on each of those issues that were a perfect example of what I'm talking about. If the government persisted in its misogyny/homophobia/racism it'd run a big risk of getting itself voted out.
That's completely illogical. If there needed to be a long campaign (lasting several election cycles) then it's pretty obvious that the general population didn't consider those things to be a big enough thing that the government would lose massive numbers of votes over them. The reason for the long campaigns was because neither the government nor the general population cared very much about the issue at the start. I won't deny that pressure from the electorate had something to do with it, but to act like all of these were such big issues that the government had to cave in to public opinion is rather foolish and intensely disrespectful to the people in the governments of the day who campaigned for those rights.
-
At the start yes, nobody cared. That's why you need the long campaign to make things change. You need to convince people to start caring. Which is exactly what was done, by the end they pretty much did care. It's a long and laborious process, but this is the only way to bring about a change on this scale. Of course, it's not like government is completely homogeneous, some politicians will try to capitalize on the minority votes (if it's large enough) and hope they can win over enough of the majority by other means (or even by the fact they're supporting minority rights, this is often worth a few points in the civilized world) that they end up winning.
As far as I've seen, the opinion on gay marriage was mostly "Well, why not?" among most of the populace when it was legalized in the US. I seem to recall an early referendum in which the majority was indeed against it, but do you have any later pools (also note that "against it" doesn't mean "60% against it, the rest for it") in which that would be the case? One should note that opinion on this issue changed very quickly since it was first brought up, gay marriage went from "no legislation, nobody ever thought of it" to "abomination!" to "basic human right" over the course of less than 20 years, IIRC.
Now explain to us why having a single unelected and unaccountable leader is better.
It's easier for a single leader (Not unaccountable! The moment you start acting like you are is the moment your regime starts to fall apart) to force a compromise. With no easy way to kick him out, a smart ruler can placate the populace with measures that do not actually do exactly what they want, but the resulting situation is acceptable enough not to start rioting over it. He is in no danger from extremist rhetoric that might score points with common people (like it currently does all over Europe), but is otherwise disastrous. This does assume the king is smarter than most of his subjects, of course (usually the case with modern absolute monarchies. Yes, even Saudi Arabia the royals are actually the progressive ones. Tells you a lot about Saudi Arabia in general, really). An idiot king can cause regression in exactly the same manner, which is one of many reasons to have the actual king selected from a number of candidates, like Saudis do.
-
It's easier for a single leader (Not unaccountable! The moment you start acting like you are is the moment your regime starts to fall apart) to force a compromise.
It's just as easy for said leader to force a solution that he prefers. And any autocrat worthy of the title is by definition unaccountable (Because power rests solely with him. None of this weak, democratic "All power derives from the people" bull****).
That's something you don't seem to get: You cannot have a supreme leader without also abolishing the concept of popular sovereignty. And once you do that, the ruling elite is no longer accountable to anyone except themselves.
With no easy way to kick him out, a smart ruler can placate the populace with measures that do not actually do exactly what they want, but the resulting situation is acceptable enough not to start rioting over it.
And a stupid ruler can ruin everything, something you also completely ignore. At least in parliamentary democracies, there are set term limits for rulers that will limit the amount of damage any single one can do.
He is in no danger from extremist rhetoric that might score points with common people (like it currently does all over Europe), but is otherwise disastrous.
No, he is in danger from extremist rhetoric that will score points with him. Why would a given ruler be immune to extremism?
This does assume the king is smarter than most of his subjects, of course (usually the case with modern absolute monarchies. Yes, even Saudi Arabia the royals are actually the progressive ones. Tells you a lot about Saudi Arabia in general, really).
Even very smart people are not immune to stupidity, extremism, myopia and a myriad of cognitive biases. By spreading the load of governance over a multitude of bodies, democracy has at least a chance to introduce corrective measures before any real damage is done; any single autocratic leader (no matter how smart) is one bad advisor away from inflicting disaster.
But yeah. Do tell us more about how Europe's past experiences with autocracy (Little things like the 30 Year's War, WW1, WW2, a multitude of succession wars all over the continent in the wake of the roman empire's collapse) are not in any way relevant to this new, better Monarchy you're advocating for. The only successful monarchies in the west right now are the ones in which the Monarch's subjects agree to do as the Monarch asks, as long as the Monarch never asks for anything.
-
At the start yes, nobody cared. That's why you need the long campaign to make things change. You need to convince people to start caring. Which is exactly what was done, by the end they pretty much did care. It's a long and laborious process, but this is the only way to bring about a change on this scale.
And how is that different to the issue of refugees? Which at the moment is in the "No one cares or are actively hostile" phase.
If you're going to make the argument that this sort of change is long and laborious, I'm going to agree with you. It does take a long time to argue the people on the wrong side of history into seeing sense. When these movements start, the majority of people are generally against them. It does take a long time to convince people not to be anti-gay marriage, or anti-black equality, or anti-women's suffrage. It does take time for attitudes to change and for the majority to move to actually realising that the earlier views the majority held were bigoted and wrong.
But if the government realise that those views are bigoted and wrong, are you seriously going to argue that they should sit on their hands until they do have a majority and do nothing while allowing people to be victimised, abused or even killed? Your original argument was that the government should do that. That since if you attempt to bring in black rights, some people might get lynched by the uncontrollable mob. So therefore, instead of trying to actually carry out the rule of law, they should just do nothing and let the blacks have no rights for now.
Well I'm going to disagree with that. I might not like the majority of European politicians but I'll stand up and applaud those who had the courage to take an unpopular stance simply because it was the morally right thing to do. And although quite a lot of people argue that they should be doing more (myself included), I'll applaud them for doing more than people like yourself are saying they should have done. I'll applaud them for not taking the far-right view of simply saying "Let's close the borders and send them all back where they came from."
One should note that opinion on this issue changed very quickly since it was first brought up, gay marriage went from "no legislation, nobody ever thought of it" to "abomination!" to "basic human right" over the course of less than 20 years, IIRC
And on what basis do you believe that this won't be the case with the refugees?
-
Speaking of sinkin and destroying things.
Turks have just shot down Russian Su-24 bomber over Syrian-Turkish border.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/24/turkey-shoots-down-jet-near-border-with-syria
Pilots ejected but one of them is probably dead, captured by "moderate rebels" as they are called in some places.
<Warning. graphic content!!!>
https://www.facebook.com/aljazeerachannel/videos/vb.160729029892/10153905139699893/?type=2&theater
BTW. Anybody here knows Arabic? It would like to understand what are these guys talking. Except the standard "snackbar" they yell every time something blows up or gets shot.
-
Well, so now we know who is next after Ukraine...
"Russia will reclaim her Russian Sevastopol,
And Crimea will be Russian once again,
We’ll retake the Bosporus, our Constantinople,
And the sacred city of Jerusalem."
This is from a ridiculously nationalist Russian song (for the record, "Kulikovo Pole" by Bichewskaya), but seeing as Putin already managed the first half, the Turks should really think twice before pissing him off and shooting his planes down. :) At the very least, the last verse suggest we'll see the end of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in a fashion...
The two posts above demand a longer response than this quip and as such, I have no time to respond to them now (check the HLP calendar at the bottom of the homepage for a clue as to why :) ). I'll try to get back to it when I have more time.
-
This might be the first actual NATO - Russian aircraft engagement since the Korean War. If the Russians retaliate, this could escalate fast.
-
Turkey is betting that Russian's ability to engage in military adventurism ends at the borders of a NATO country.
They are probably correct in their assessment of Russian operational capability. But it will be very exciting to be the duty Black Sea AEGIS BMD ship for the next few days.
-
Turkey is betting that Russian's ability to engage in military adventurism ends at the borders of a NATO country.
Yeah, IDK if that's going to work out if Turkey starts shooting down Russian planes. If this happens again, I can't see the Russians not retaliating. And that won't end well for anyone involved.
-
Yeah, IDK if that's going to work out if NATO starts shooting down Russian planes.
You're assuming the question is political will, rather than operational ability. The Russian military is better than it used to be, but it still hasn't come back from the '90s crashes entirely, much less achieved the parity with the West it had during the late '70s.
Putin's built his image as a strong man, but the lesson of Saddam lurks for the astute: nothing is more dangerous to a strong man than a losing war.
-
I don't expect Russian response to spectacular. They already have much problems. Ukraine, involvement in Syria, energetic sabotage on Crimea, jet liner shot down. Somebody is clearly giving them a signal to "know their place". We will see within next few days. I guess that right now they are thinking what to say. But one thing is very clear.... Turkey doesn't give a f***. They warned them what will happen. Maybe they got pissed for that demolished "pipeline on wheels" with IS oil xD
-
Yeah, IDK if that's going to work out if NATO starts shooting down Russian planes.
You're assuming the question is political will, rather than operational ability. The Russian military is better than it used to be, but it still hasn't come back from the '90s crashes entirely, much less achieved the parity with the West it had during the late '70s.
They don't need parity with NATO. NATO doesn't have the political will for a war with Russia, especially not if they're being dragged into it because the Turks are being hotheads and decide to start shooting down Russian planes that might or might not have entered their airspace for a few seconds. And Turkey most certainly can't fight Russia alone. They'd lose. Badly.
Doesn't help Turkey's case that the Americans are already annoyed at them because the Turks are bombing the Kurds.
If they're gambling that being a NATO member means they can attack Russian planes without consequence, I don't think that's gonna work out. I don't see NATO tolerating that, much less the Russians. If this happens again, I can't imagine the Russians won't retaliate. Putin couldn't afford not to.
-
NATO won't be dragged into a war with Russia if Turkey provides Russia with a good casus belli. Shooting down their aircraft unprovoked definitely qualifies. If Russia retaliates, Turkey is an island, and I don't think they quite realize that yet.
-
Exactly. NATO is obliged to come to defend its members from an attack, not jump in when one of the NATO countries attacks someone. This was done precisely do avoid another WWI. Europe doesn't want a war with Russia, nor do they care much for Turkey lately. I'd say, the Turks just invited the Russians in with that plane. That was a very shortsighted thing to do, given everything. Dunno if this was planned or not, but if Putin intended to bait them into giving him a casus belli that way (definitely wouldn't put it past him), then they took it hook, line and sinker. And even if he didn't plan for that, it's still playing right into his hands. Russia is bombing ISIS now, so they're "good guys" in that region, at least. TBH, I'm looking forward to hearing what Russians have to say about that.
-
They don't need parity with NATO. NATO doesn't have the political will for a war with Russia, especially not if they're being dragged into it because the Turks are being hotheads and decide to start shooting down Russian planes that might or might not have entered their airspace for a few seconds. And Turkey most certainly can't fight Russia alone. They'd lose. Badly.
The thing is...this is wrong. What can Russia force on the Turks? The air campaign might be impressive, but that holds problems of its own. Especially given the decayed state of the Russian Air Force. Turkey is on the upswing; Russia took months to assemble the sortie they did earlier, getting aircraft into shape. Russia does not have the ability to invade and win; they had extreme difficulty with Chechnya, and they remember it. And the moment they tried, the arguments about political will go out the window. Even an extensive bombing campaign will change that very quickly.
Your estimations are all wrong, because you're assuming that this is comparable to any number of third-world military-adventurism things that superpowers have done. It isn't. Russia has gotten away with Ukraine thanks to plausible deniability and the fact that relatively few people have been impacted directly; the major cities of Ukraine are untouched for good reason. Turkey's first step was to make deniability impossible, and the country is either empty or populous with little middle ground. Similarly, this is a country that is more European than it is Third World, and the moment you show the people of Europe a country much like their own being bombed and invaded by what can only be Russians, the shift will be seismic. This isn't the third world. This isn't a territorial dispute. This is naked, highly escalatory aggression. If they do anything besides kill exactly one Turk in response, it's become punitive, and that's not going to be a casus belli the rest of the world will accept for very long.
Add to that the fact that far too many European gas pipelines run through Turkey right now.
The Turks are far more shrewd than you seem to realize, and Russia's position is weaker as well.
-
Similarly, this is a country that is more European than it is Third World, and the moment you show the people of Europe a country much like their own being bombed and invaded by what can only be Russians, the shift will be seismic.
Turkey is European-influenced but hardly anyone considers them to be European. For most people it will mentally be yet another middle eastern muslim country at war.
The attitude of the people of Europe will depend on how harsh the Russian response is. Outright invasion of Turkey? Yeah, that is going to look like Russia is the aggressor. A retaliatory bombing or two? Many people will think Turkey merely got what they deserved.
But I think the most sensible course of action for all parties involved would be deescalation. Lets hope Putin is rational enough to realize that.
-
They don't need parity with NATO. NATO doesn't have the political will for a war with Russia, especially not if they're being dragged into it because the Turks are being hotheads and decide to start shooting down Russian planes that might or might not have entered their airspace for a few seconds. And Turkey most certainly can't fight Russia alone. They'd lose. Badly.
The thing is...this is wrong. What can Russia force on the Turks? The air campaign might be impressive, but that holds problems of its own. Especially given the decayed state of the Russian Air Force. Turkey is on the upswing; Russia took months to assemble the sortie they did earlier, getting aircraft into shape. Russia does not have the ability to invade and win; they had extreme difficulty with Chechnya, and they remember it. And the moment they tried, the arguments about political will go out the window. Even an extensive bombing campaign will change that very quickly.
Your estimations are all wrong, because you're assuming that this is comparable to any number of third-world military-adventurism things that superpowers have done. It isn't. Russia has gotten away with Ukraine thanks to plausible deniability and the fact that relatively few people have been impacted directly; the major cities of Ukraine are untouched for good reason. Turkey's first step was to make deniability impossible, and the country is either empty or populous with little middle ground. Similarly, this is a country that is more European than it is Third World, and the moment you show the people of Europe a country much like their own being bombed and invaded by what can only be Russians, the shift will be seismic. This isn't the third world. This isn't a territorial dispute. This is naked, highly escalatory aggression. If they do anything besides kill exactly one Turk in response, it's become punitive, and that's not going to be a casus belli the rest of the world will accept for very long.
Add to that the fact that far too many European gas pipelines run through Turkey right now.
The Turks are far more shrewd than you seem to realize, and Russia's position is weaker as well.
The Russian Air Force is larger, better trained, and more sophisticated than the Turkish one. No, it it isn't the equal of the US Air Force or the US Navy, but it's a match for any other air force on the planet. They don't need to invade Turkey. They can destroy the Turkish Air Force and the Turkish Navy with trivial ease. They can finance and arm Turkey's Kurdish insurgency. Russia is the undisputed dominant power of the Black Sea, and they can **** Turkey over without putting one tank on Turkish soil. An invasion would be moronic anyway simply because Anatolia is way too easy to defend, being mostly covered in mountains.
Chechnya was 20 years ago. It is in no way representative of the modern Russian military. Hell, even Georgia in 2008 paints an outdated picture. The Russian military is nowhere near what it was in the 1990s. It's gone through extensive reforms and it's much, much better financed. Nowadays it's easily comparable to any Western European one.
Russia has gotten away with Ukraine because no one gives enough of a **** about Ukraine to go to war with Russia over it. I wouldn't bet that Europe would leap into war with Russia over a war Turkey started. Especially since the Russians wouldn't even invade, both because they don't have the means to and because they don't need to. This isn't Germany or Poland. Turkey isn't even an EU member. I think you drastically overestimate how much westerners care about Turkey.
Chances are what'll happen here is absolutely nothing. The Russians will start putting more fighters in the air, they'll fly their bombers a bit further away from the Turkish border, and everyone will continue posturing for the sake of the cameras.
-
Turkey has been a pain in America's ass the last few years so I don't think we are itching to get into a war with Russia over them even if they are NATO (which only matters if they didn't provoke an attack which is debatable at best)
-
Russia's response so far will be placement of S-400 SAM batteries in Syria. Well.... Turkish Air Force will have a problem. Good deal for the Syrians though. One potential threat of violating their airspace <for example to bombard Kurds> less.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-s400-surface-to-air-missiles-syria-turkey-fighter-jet-nato/
#Edit:
(http://www.defence24.pl/uploads/images/fc56629b1d0dd000723e039296d62aa08329cff3.png)
Range radius of a single battery equipped with 40N6 missiles. Did anybody mention something about lack of capabilities of Russian military?
-
Range radius of a single battery equipped with 40N6 missiles. Did anybody mention something about lack of capabilities of Russian military?
The Flying Telephone Pole could do that too, but nobody respects the SA-2 anymore. They're actually making a relative mistake exposing that system; the West knows little about it, so thanks for letting us watch how it works?
They can destroy the Turkish Air Force and the Turkish Navy with trivial ease.
Actually extremely doubtful. Russian operational readiness and flying hours rates are in the toilet and getting worse, as they have been for the last three years. Turkey by contrast is doing well in terms of having new aircraft and more capable available air defense systems; the difference now is a lot smaller than it would have been in the '80s or even the '90s, as weird as that sounds.
More to the point, doing so would be politically disastrous. Your argument here is based on two contradictory precepts; what will not draw a reaction and breathless doomsday predictions of mass devastation. Any kind of large campaign isn't something Russian can afford. The most they could get away with would be one concerted retaliatory strike on a relatively small scale, against a single target. (This is also likely all they could operationally support without significantly biasing their operations against the rebels or their harassment of NATO's northern flank as well.)
-
Range radius of a single battery equipped with 40N6 missiles. Did anybody mention something about lack of capabilities of Russian military?
The Flying Telephone Pole could do that too, but nobody respects the SA-2 anymore. They're actually making a relative mistake exposing that system; the West knows little about it, so thanks for letting us watch how it works?
That's Russia's problem, not mine xD If they use it, good for us <NATO>. We will gather data and get the chance to counter that threat in the future. Russians have a tendency to demonstrate their military might every time they can <often with exaggerated megalomania>. That move is no exception.
-
Yeah, for anyone predicting Russia obliterating Turkey I would just like to point out one little thing.
Russia: 0
Turkey: 1
-
Well, we'll see how long it stays that way when those S-400s get there. I suppose the Turks won't mess with Russian bombers again. The S-400 is a modern SAM system, superior to pretty much everything NATO has. An F-16 doesn't really have much chance against those beyond staying out of range.
Open war with Russia doesn't seem to be a threat for Turkey (yet...), but I'd expect the Kurds to find themselves much better supplied really soon. Remember that in Ukraine, Russians didn't really barge in until the country has already gone to hell. If Turkey became destabilized, Russians would surely be the first in line for the sending a "peacekeeping mission".
-
I don't know if deploying 400km active radar fire and forget surface to air missiles isn't a recipe for accidentally shooting down the wrong poor bastard.
-
yeah, fun fact: The US is flying planes in that red circle
-
There's such a thing as IFF, you know? Also, I suspect that there is some datalink system in place. There are so many NATO planes flying around there that Russians won't be firing the missiles blindly. They'll probably be available on call for the bombers and their escorts. Seeing as they generally have the same purpose as NATO in the region (that is, reducing the entirety of Syria to smoking ruins and hopefully a bunch of ISIS fighters with it), trying to keep them out would be as counterproductive as Turkey trying to chase Russians away.
-
That worked out for MH17.
-
What worked out? I don't know, what does MH17 has to do with this? It was a civilian airliner (I don't think they have IFF) shot down by a bunch of Ukrainian rebels (whom I wouldn't credit with being able to operate IFF). They even claimed the kill until it transpired it was about a civilian plane (yes, they somehow managed to mistake a Boeing 777 for an An-26). Rest assured, actual Russian Air Force (or Air Defense Force, dunno whose SAMs are getting sent) very much can tell their targets apart.
-
And here they are. Russian SAMs arrived to Syria:
(https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/12291263_1527631007550362_7953241841529132088_o.jpg)
-
Interestingly, the UAz is still being used :lol: I also did not know that the Russians have copied the Hum-Vee as well. They, of course, are going to deny any allegations copying the Hum-vee as it being part of their own research. I did not know the situation with skilled technical people is so bad that they now have to copy even the jeeps!
Adding S400 to Syria, well, I'll have to say it's gonna get interesting. Hopefully those Russians this time know their IFF and are REALLY careful about who they are going to fire as NATO aircraft are operating in Syria anyways. So let's see how Russians define the Turkish border this time. It would be quite bad if F-16 was downed within Turkish borders with the system. Would also be interesting to know how many F-22s can reach the area.
Would anyone venture a guess if Turkey is going to close Russia from Syria by closing Bospor?
-
UAZ is a classic example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. It's a great off-road car, as far as they go. When everything that could break down does so, you're left with just the UAZ. :) As for the Hum-Vee, it's actually an Iveco. A rather common military utility car, used by Russians, among others.
I don't think Turkey is gonna mess with Bosporus. They've pissed off Russians enough with that plane, and they didn't have Europe on their side in this.
-
UAZ doesn't break? :lol:
Last time I hanged out with my friend for a military vehicle meeting <Borne Sulinowo 2014> we had a great pleasure to experience all kind of problems. The most common were constantly clogged fuel filters <but that's sh**** fuel's guilt I guess> and problems with fuel injectors. On the way home we were running on one cylinder only :P
Back to the topic. I'm interested how it will develop. Apart from SAMs Russians also deployed additional aircraft <10 multi-role fighters>. They won't be deploying bombers without escort now. So the Turks will have to think at least twice before they pull the trigger.
-
Those don't look like HMMWVs at all. They've Iveco LMVs, which is an Italian design the Russians bought a couple years ago. Smaller and lighter than the Tigr, so fits on a plane better.
-
What worked out? I don't know, what does MH17 has to do with this? It was a civilian airliner (I don't think they have IFF) shot down by a bunch of Ukrainian rebels (whom I wouldn't credit with being able to operate IFF). They even claimed the kill until it transpired it was about a civilian plane (yes, they somehow managed to mistake a Boeing 777 for an An-26). Rest assured, actual Russian Air Force (or Air Defense Force, dunno whose SAMs are getting sent) very much can tell their targets apart.
If you honestly believe that a system that complex was operated by rebels, that's amusing. If you really believe that civilians don't squawk when queried by IFF, that's sad. (Protip: civilian transponders squawk constantly for collision-avoidance purposes. Hell, traffic control radar doesn't even actually see civilian aircraft directly in a lot of cases, just their transponder squawk. Military aircraft are usually capable of faking a civilian ID if they want to, for that matter, so the ID isn't always valid.)
If you think that the air defense troops and the air force are the same entity in Russia, you really shouldn't even be a part of this discussion.
-
All wrong. Of course I know that Air Force and Air Defense Force are different entities (Duh, you would know if you thought a little what I wrote!). In case you don't know, Russian Air Force also operates its own SAM systems. In particular, ABMs (it doesn't seem to have S-400s, though, just 53T6 missiles). Those S-400s are Air Defense Force.
And yes, a system this complex can be operated by the rebels. How? By reading the bloody manual. This has come up before on Polish news. There are two kinds of manuals for these systems. One of which is an "operational" manual describing a detailed procedure for actual users of the system, the other amounts to "press this button to launch missile" and is meant for technicians servicing it. Buk system is pretty complex, but it has a TELAR vehicle which is essentially a self-contained SAM platform. Using such a platform, it's possible to go through the whole procedure with a single vehicle, as long as you know where to point the radar (which they did, likely by sight). Indeed, it has been said (on the same Polish news) that the plane went down faster than it would have with a properly trained crew. This meant they ignored (or didn't know) the usual pre-launch procedures, target identification and so on.
TBH, you're underestimating how easy it is to gain a rudimentary understanding of even a complex system. I was able to take off and fly around in DCS: Black Shark after less than a day of just reading the manual and starting at buttons (yes, using the "full realism" setting, without automatic startup). Launching weapons from an F-16 in another detailed sim took me about this long. If you have instructions and can follow them, then you can operate any system you have a manual for. Those years of training? They're required to operate them effectively, that is to say, against other people with years of training. Shooting down an airliner that doesn't even suspect someone could try is a trivial affair that pretty much only requires launching any missile at it.
Yeah, so my mistake about IFF. Didn't think collision avoidance squawks and IFF are the same system. Still, even in case IFF is not reliable, a military TA radar can tell an airliner from a fighter. A missile guidance radar likely can't, but the rebels wouldn't bother with that anyway. Regular troops certainly would check their target before launching SAMs.
-
UAZ doesn't break?
Last time I hanged out with my friend for a military vehicle meeting <Borne Sulinowo 2014> we had a great pleasure to experience all kind of problems. The most common were constantly clogged fuel filters <but that's sh**** fuel's guilt I guess> and problems with fuel injectors. On the way home we were running on one cylinder only
This is more in line with what I witnessed as well. GRAZ (the heavy truck) worked better for the moments I saw it, but even then, the newer vehicles what we had were better. Yes you could get the UAZ to fire the engine in cold and it could probably run with whale oil, but it was more a question of how long it took. Sometimes the generality simply doesn't work. I suppose you could design a gun that fires a 5.56 mm round and a 7.62 mm round, but it wouldn't be great at doing either of them.
Interestingly, the S400 covers part of Israel and Cyprus. I guess the guys manning the station there are the among the brightest lads in Russian Forces. There's no room for any mistakes here.