Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
22. It's usually pretty easy to get around a single weapons system.
Fri Sep 6, 2013, 02:19 PM
Sep 2013

I think the model for this is the Argentinian's use of the Exocet missile with Etendard planes in the Falkland Island war. Had it been allowed to continue, it would have been a game changer. The Brits took it out with special operations missions against the planes while they were on the ground.

This is why you need several integrated systems. An S300 or S400 SAM system combined with good AAA batteries and with a good army and armored units and a good Air Force is a serious threat.

If you have multiple pieces missing, a top tiered military like the US, China or Russia can eliminate a single dangerous system easily.

Right off the top of my head I can think of two options. First, like the Brits did in the Falklands, insert spec ops teams to destroy them. Or second, send stealth aircraft who can destroy them without ever being detected.

If the Russians choose to ship S300 [View all] Harmony Blue Sep 2013 OP
"What could possibly go wrong?" unhappycamper Sep 2013 #1
Yes, very much so. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #2
The Russians could complicate the US' life by selling S400s to anyone who wants them FarCenter Sep 2013 #3
If the S400 is tested and proven effective... HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #4
A missile system that obsoletes the existing fleet of fighters and bombers would be welcome by most FarCenter Sep 2013 #7
Not really hack89 Sep 2013 #5
I'm sure that the Russians have trained operators. FarCenter Sep 2013 #8
Russia is not.going to kill Americans to protect Syria hack89 Sep 2013 #9
There are Russian "advisors" in Syria now. FarCenter Sep 2013 #10
Only if they are stupid enough hack89 Sep 2013 #11
Stupid is as stupid does. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #14
Hardly the first time... bobclark86 Sep 2013 #17
Yes. jsr Sep 2013 #6
That service altitude is wrong krispos42 Sep 2013 #13
1 m = 3 ft 3.325in.; 30 km = ~98,312 ft n/t Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #15
Exactly. krispos42 Sep 2013 #26
I think I was being a little lexdysic Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #28
It looks to be on par sarisataka Sep 2013 #19
Israel bombed Assad 3 times since the civil war in Syria Lifelong Dem Sep 2013 #12
Who takes his place? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #16
Kerry said it Lifelong Dem Sep 2013 #18
He said he has a pipedream of what should happen. He has no way of guaranteeing it. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #20
A pipe dream that involves the Geneva Conventions Lifelong Dem Sep 2013 #21
Again, a pipe dream. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #24
You mean like what we did in Iraq and Libya??? sabrina 1 Sep 2013 #23
What 'mutual agreement'? Who is going to enforce it? Kerry himself? idwiyo Sep 2013 #29
That's a pisspoor argument AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #25
The tyrant may be a tyrant but he is a tyrant on the tight leash of Russia Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #27
But he does do overtly stupid things AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #31
Allowing him to be replaced by AQ would be a disaster. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #32
I don't buy into the "Quadas" argument AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #33
They're already there flying the AQ flag. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #34
"Gotta hide from the Quadas" AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #36
"we can have our war cheap, easy and expedient" is another Bush era lie. Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #37
More "Quadas" nonsense AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #38
In case you missed it -- Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #39
I don't buy it AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #40
Do you buy the "let's not have another $2 trillion war" arguments? Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #42
No, I don't buy those either AgingAmerican Sep 2013 #44
"Assad never once retaliated" <-- So he's a threat to global peace or he isn't? NoOneMan Sep 2013 #30
Ooh. Good catch. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2013 #35
It's usually pretty easy to get around a single weapons system. stevenleser Sep 2013 #22
Or third, mind our own fuckn business NoOneMan Sep 2013 #41
That's a separate issue. I'm against the war, the OP asked a specific question. nt stevenleser Sep 2013 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If the Russians choose to...»Reply #22