PATRIOT Missiles to be sent to Turkey

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Mushroom, Dec 15, 2012.

  1. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One thing in the news the last several days I have been paying close attention to is the deployment of 6 PATRIOT missile Batteries (36 launchers) to Turkey Of those, 2 will come from the US, 2 from Germany and 2 from the Netherlands.

    However, not everybody is taking this in stride. Today I found the following "alarming" report from Iran:

    UPDATE 2-Patriot missiles in Turkey threaten world war -Iran army chief | Reuters

    Now this I find pretty disturbing, because the PATRIOT is purely a defensive system. It can't be used against people, tanks, buildings, or areas of land. It's only use is shooting down missiles and aircraft. So how exactly would this usher in another "world war"? Unless Turkey is being attacked, these are of absolutely no threat at all. It is like claiming that a new form of body armor or aircraft RADAR would usher in a war.

    How the Patriot deployment to Turkey will work – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

    Personally, I am going to be following this very closely. Odds are, I am going to know quite a few people that are sent there. And like often, I just wish Iran would ****, instead of trying to escalate problems.
     
  2. unclebob

    unclebob New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Iran's regime are very odd. The longer they are left to their own devices, the worse it is going to get.

    They are well overdue a bit of NATO influence.
     
  3. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know what you are talking about. I watch Russia Today and Press TV, just to see what the Russian's and Iranian's views are. They call the deployment an act of aggression against Syria. Then I shout at the TV for a bit and change the channel.
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Personally, I largely laugh at it.

    Earlier, Russia announced that they were deploying their S-400 to their border regions. And this largely got a large yawn from me. I certainly do not see this deployment as a threat, so laugh when other countries see something similar and consider it a threat.

    For goodness sakes, this is a defensive system. It is as threatening as a new form of body armor on soldiers, or a new air defense missile onboard a ship. Unless you intend to attack them, this is of no threat at all.

    I also watch RT and Press TV, it is often quite ammusing actually. This is the latest one I read the other day.

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/16/278438/iran-offers-condolences-to-us-families/

    *shakes head at the need to throw political darts after such a tragedy*
     
  5. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Russia Today and Press TV are amusing news sources. They simply parrot propaganda for their respective governments.
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would not always agree to that. Of course, back in the 1980's I frequently listened to Radio Moscow on the shortwave.

    However, I listen and read all such sources with a much different eye. And what is not said or talked about is often as interesting as what is talked about. And when looking at such sources, I often get the feeling of looking through a fun-house mirror. Everything is distorted and twisted, and it is hard to really understand.

    Oh, and in the same article, it is claimed that the US is "energy independent".

    And what is the title of this fascinating article from Press TV?

    United States bent on eventual destruction of Russia

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/12/12/277642/us-bent-on-waging-nuclear-war-on-russia/

    This is why I read through things like this, and just shake my head at the fact that some people actually believe it. Much as I do at the claims of some "scholars" that over 8 million people starved to death in the US during the depression.

    http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/105255-0/

    To me, these are more cultural windows then actual information sources.
     
  7. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Propaganda need not involve simply distortion of information. Indeed, the exclusion of certain information is equally integral to a news source being a tool that misleads the public. However, in particular, Russia Today and Press TV are propaganda tools for their respective governments because they not only alter substance, but do so with public funding. Pravda is no better, as it parrots the talking points of the Russian Communist Party.
     
  8. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I really wonder whether these missiles are meant to defend against Iran, or if Iran is just being used as an excuse, and the USA is actually preparing for military conflict with Russia. Many russians certainly have this suspicion.
     
  9. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Syria has launched quite a few rockets and artillery rounds at Turkey, and there have been a few "accidental" incursions by their jets.

    Syria claims they are all accidental, but putting defenses against such along the border will surely do a lot to making sure the Syrians are more carefull in the future. Both to keep their aircraft on the right side of the border, and to prevent "accidental" rounds from striking across the border. After all, the last thing they would want to do is hit a US, German or Netherlands outpost by mistake, that would have repercussions they would not want at all.

    Think of it as having UN Peace Keepers on the border, back 40 years ago when such Peace Keepers actually meant something.
     
  10. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think credible offensive missile capabilities could do better than PATRIOT missiles. After all, the latter are clearly known for their defensive capabilities, and therefore, the Syrian Army will not hesitate as much as they would if we place, say, tomahawk missiles, on Turkey's border. This is all about what Robert Jervis calls offense-defense variation.
     
  11. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One German MP or MEP said the US and NATO were planning to invade Russia, Syria and Iran, these people really get on my nerves, does Europe not have enough problem without you saying lies like this.
     
  12. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who?

    Quote and link please.

    We do have enough trouble without unsubstantiated claims like this.
     
  13. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uhh, what?

    Sorry, we have not had ground-based Cruise Missiles for over 2 decades now. The BLGM was removed from service back in 1988 under the INF treaty, and all units were destroyed by 1991.

    So are you really trying to insist that we place something in Turkey that is not only prohibited by international treaty, but we have not possessed for decades?

    [​IMG]

    I mean, really! Is it so incredibly hard to do research before making such statements? Just a little research would have shown that you are trying to support a weapon system that no longer exists.
     
  15. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course not. I am simply making the point that it would be better if the United States provides Turkey with missiles of an offensive nature, such as the Tomahawk. I do not mean that the United States provide outdated or illegal offensive missiles.
     
  16. SFJEFF

    SFJEFF New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    30,804
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This guy was a 'consultant' who said that Nato planned to attack Russia from within- with 'agents'.

    Why do you give him any credence whatsoever?

    This guy clearly had an agenda and there is no sign on of any willingness by Germany or Nato to tangle directly with Russia.
     
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And why would we do that? So that a war might get started?

    Sorry my friend, I am against going around and starting wars that can be prevented. And putting into place offensive weapons not only would blur "who started the war" if one did kick off, but be seen as a very agressive move by other nations.

    BTW, do you even know what kind of "offensive missiles" we have in our inventory? Tomahawk, MLRS, and that really is about it. But Tomahawk is not ground launched anymore, now they are all sea launched. And do you really think id they are needed, we would not have them en-route within an hour or so? We have ships and aircraft all over that region with Tomahawk missiles. So putting them in Turkey itself is rather pointless.
     
  18. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The UK also has Tomahawk on it's submarines and bases on Cyprus, so it wouldn't be very hard to help Turkey.
     
  19. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As am I. An offensive missile, or for that matter, any offensive explosive projective, does not necessarily provoke conflict. If that was the case, the Cold War would have quickly disintegrated into nuclear defection between the US and the USSR. It did not. This shows how powerful the Security Dilemma is as a force in state conflict. To say that it cannot be in the case of the US and Syria is being short-sighted.

    Furthermore, I am looking at this from the perspective of an international relations scholar, not a military official. Unlike the USSR, Syria does not have a two-sided mindset. In other words, it does not see the Security Dilemma as an offense-defense differentiation. Any effort by the US to protect its allies in the region pushes Assad to ignore or escalate violence. After all, with only a meager amount of foreign assistance, the Syrian rebels are making significant headway against the Syrian army. As Robert Putnam says, there are two levels to the game of international relations: the domestic and the foreign, and Assad is most focused on the domestic. He could care less as to whether the US places offensive or defensive missiles in Turkey.

    With this in mind, I see no reason why putting offensive missiles on standby in the Mediterranean or in Turkey would do anything. The response by Assad would likely be the same: manageable meddling in the territory of our allies with overwhelming emphasis on crushing internal insurrection. What would really provoke a war is direct and extensive arming of the Free Syrian Army, and a clear and apparent ground invasion of Syria.
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember, the idea is to deter Syria from trying to attack what it seems to believe is the source of rebel supplies. The reason for not putting offensive missiles is mostly an issue of politics.

    A lot of the world's opinion on this region is mixed, and if a conflict was to arrise, it would be important politically to be able to show decisively which side started an engagement. If we had offensive missiles in the region as well as Syria, then if a conflict arrose Syria and other nations would be screaming that the US started it, no matter who fired the first missile.

    But if we needed them, missiles are available in that region already, so there is absolutely no reason to put them right on the border.
     
  21. Margot

    Margot Account closed, not banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    62,086
    Likes Received:
    340
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Check out Debka File.

    http://www.debka.com/
     
  22. oldjar07

    oldjar07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    You've got to be kidding me if you don't think U.S. or other western citizens aren't fed just as much propaganda.
     
  23. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have you ever watched RT or PressTV? When Russia launches a new submarine or Iran tests new anti-ship missiles it's looked at as a good thing, but when the UK releases funds to built another submarine, they say how can the UK government waste this money on a submarine. The BBC has problem but it is nowhere near as one sided as RT, PressTV or even Al jazeera.
     
  24. oldjar07

    oldjar07 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,915
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    So, the west has no problem with Russia launching a new submarine or Iran testing anti-ship missiles?
     
  25. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Our governments do, but there was nothing on the BBC about the Iranians testing new anti-ship missiles and nothing about the Russians launching a new submarine. You were trying to say that western news is just as bad as RT and PressTV, which it isn't. You called western news propaganda, which it isn't. The UK isn't like the US we don't have things like Fox or MSNBC.
     

Share This Page