Off Topic Mali attack

Russia is taking it more seriously. Politically the US is war weary. The left usually oppose war and the right oppose it when Obama suggests it.

Unfortunately, Russia is going after everyone not just IS.

 

Its my main reservation about UK planes taking to Syrian skies. Its a cluster **** at the moment. Turkey (signed up member of NATO) shooting down Russian planes...Russia shooting at everything that Moves...

With cricles within circles Its a fireball waiting to happen.

 

I'm sure Russia knew what they were doing.

How many times over the last few years has Russia flown over Danish or German or even British airspace? They're testing various countries response time.

I know Moscow and Glasgow are easily confused on the GPS but you'd think the pilots would get a hint they're going the wrong way flying over the North Sea.

Turkey shows they have what no country in Europe apparently has...

...balls.


It had to be done. Someone had to do it.

 

Oh I applaud the Turks from a right to self defence point of view..this isn't the first incursion by the Rissians into Turkish airspace as you say.

But it yet again highlights the complexity of the official and unofficial allegiances in the area. Turkey being a Nato member is handcuffed to us and with us been supporting Assad opponents. They have also however been supporting IS rebels too. Russia no matter what they say is targeting anyone against assads regime. So we will have Russian, French, US, Saudi and if the UK joins in UK warplanes all in the same airspace all going for competing targets....disaster waiting to happen.

It's also interesting that we will have Cameron, Obama et al having to defend Turkeys action on the grounds of self defence when operating in Syrians airspace without invitation.....

Clusterfuck.

 

Time for taking sides - Here comes the next Crusade, I fear.

Just what the Islamafanatics have wanted all along.

 

I don't think even the govts know what side theyre on anymore....

 

Of course, the whole history of the Cold War onwards shows us that the dirty Ruskies kept testing our airspace, whilst NATO never, ever once overflew the USSR (and the SR 71 was a multi-billion dollar weather research plane).

****ing grow up.

 

Yeah... I wouldn't want Britain involved either. Too many interests at stake from different groups.

The scary thing is what happens when the war against IS is over. Do we leave the other rebels at it? Russia wants to bomb them and presumably get Assad back on the full throne... Or set up a puppet state. The west is going to want their own regime.

 

And while being slightly simplistic isn't this how two world wars started? Axis here, treaty there...tied up in knots until someone starts shooting at someone with an official treaty and then........

 

Who said the west didn't?

The difference is Russia has started back doing it the last decade and the cold war is supposed to be over.

 

More to lose this time around. No one wants WWIII not even Putin.

 

Yeah and if we accept it we create a new west hating group with all the rebels we abandon to Assad and Russian "care"...

 

We're not going to let Russia set up their regime their and they're not going to let us set up ours. The whole thing is set up for a decades long crapfest.

 

Nobody wanted the other two either...everyone believed no one would go this far or would stop at that line but then did because they thought everyone else wouldnt go this far or would stop at that line.....

 

Theoretically any WW will have to end as a stalemate. Either both sides nuke each other or both sides don't and neither makes any significant advances in the other.

If nuclear weapons were avoided but one side was winning the war the loser would almost certainly resort to nukes... So stalemate.

No side can win world wars anymore. The best you can do is a gentlemanly draw with the heavier weapons not used. No possible way to win is the extra deterrent.

 

If Andy Murray gets blown up in Belgium in the David Cup does the SNP declare war on IS for murdering a Scot or do they claim its nothing to do with them as he was playing under a GB flag?

 

E.g..Korea, Vietnam and both the Russo-Afghan and West-Afghan wars.....

 

Possibly the worst scenario would involve middleweight nuclear nations such as NK, Pakistan, India, or Israel.

(probably not India as it doesn't seem feasible any non superpower making massive strides against them).

If one of the above nations were in a war that looked like an inevitable loss without nuclear bombs. They would use them. And how other countries respond to that could launch disaster.

I think major military nations like the U.S. Russia or China going nuclear against each other is minimal. Its much more likely a smaller nation would be the powder keg.

 

Yeah...i always placed my bets on any conflict going nuclear would be Pakistan v India.

Nowdays I still put money on a nuclear attack in a wesern city carried out by islamic extremists with a Pakistani device "lost" at some point.