Syria update
from JIM STONE
There are many theories floating around about Syria. Some people are saying it was an act of desperation by Trump. Others are saying it was a chess move, where he tested Russia's S-300 and S-400 missile systems. Others think as I do, and that he caved to the neocons. WHATEVER THE SITUATION, HERE IS THE OUTCOME SO FAR:
Inexplicably, 60 missiles were fired, 1 fell into the ocean, 59 headed to Syria successfully, and 23 made it. That's bad. If Russia's S-300 and S-400 missile systems caused that, IT IS BAD.
People don't seem to understand that you don't need a 100 percent kill rate on something like a cruise missile to have a weapons system like the S-400 be a success. I'd gauge outrageous success at a 30 percent hit rate on something like a cruise missile. That would be an AMAZING success. If twice that was lost to Russian missile defenses, it represents total doom for the United States. Why would that be? The answer is easy:
If Russia has a missile system so good it can nail cruise missiles better than half the time, it also means that it will have an extremely high success rate while shooting down aircraft. Aircraft are not expendable single use weapons. To make it worthwhile to have an aircraft it has to fly successfully many many times, at least 100 times. If there is something out there that will, on average, make it possible to fly an aircraft only twice you might as well give up before you even start.
Obviously we don't know if the super high failure rate was due to Russian missile defenses or if it was due to good Russian jamming, or if it was due to cruise missiles that were crap. I doubt they were crap. But we do now know that Russia is not a helpless victim in waiting.
If Russian defenses took out so many missiles, then the obvious best Russian retaliatory/defensive tactic would be:
1. Nuke the warships, and 2. Take the aircraft out with advanced missiles.
America without question has the world's most powerful navy. In fact, America's navy is twice or more as capable as the entire rest of the world combined. But nukes are a serious problem for warships, I'd call the U.S. Navy little more than a way to project power into nations that don't have nuclear weapons. Up against Russia, the navy is toast. Even Kim Jong could probably take the navy out. And the U.S. Navy is such a menace that not nuking it if you could would be the real life manifestation of "Dumb and Dumber". I doubt Russia would be stupid enough to just let the Navy stick a hot fire poker wherever it wanted.
Going up against the U.S. Navy without a nuclear response available would be equal to getting nuked. A nuclear response would be the only correct answer. Therefore, Trump had better keep the navy parked and do nothing against Russia because only one thing will happen if Trump sends a significant portion of the navy to fight Russia: 165 or more U.S. warplanes will be in the air, and have no place to land.
I do not think a war against Russia will be winnable
I don't think a war against China would be winnable. Probably not even India. You might have luck against Pakistan. You would win against North Korea after significant losses. And the answer to why is easy: You can't send a navy against decent quality nukes. Pakistan has very crappy nukes so they are "iffy". But I'd bet Kim Jong could score between 3 and 7 Nimitz class aircraft carriers all by himself. China would eat them all, plus a lot of the U.S. mainland. Russia would be at least 5x worse than China.
The bottom line is that it does not matter how many toys you have, or what your budget is when the people you are attacking have nukes. Nukes are the great equalizer, 20 equal the entire U.S. Navy, and the navy cost 1000 or more times as much. When Russia has many thousands, screwing with that is idiot's play. There is no conceivable way you'd not get hit enough to wipe you out, even if you had a 99 percent kill rate against them.
Let's hope cool heads prevail. But there is a problem: They probably will not, because the Globalists could care less about America, and has a zombie tap right into America's brain. Globalist neocon traitorsin America won't mind poking the bear as long as they can fully put the blame on someone else. THAT is the real danger, don't count on cool heads prevailing when evil people have motives and can cause others to die while accomplishing their goals on behalf of evil.
from JIM STONE
There are many theories floating around about Syria. Some people are saying it was an act of desperation by Trump. Others are saying it was a chess move, where he tested Russia's S-300 and S-400 missile systems. Others think as I do, and that he caved to the neocons. WHATEVER THE SITUATION, HERE IS THE OUTCOME SO FAR:
Inexplicably, 60 missiles were fired, 1 fell into the ocean, 59 headed to Syria successfully, and 23 made it. That's bad. If Russia's S-300 and S-400 missile systems caused that, IT IS BAD.
People don't seem to understand that you don't need a 100 percent kill rate on something like a cruise missile to have a weapons system like the S-400 be a success. I'd gauge outrageous success at a 30 percent hit rate on something like a cruise missile. That would be an AMAZING success. If twice that was lost to Russian missile defenses, it represents total doom for the United States. Why would that be? The answer is easy:
If Russia has a missile system so good it can nail cruise missiles better than half the time, it also means that it will have an extremely high success rate while shooting down aircraft. Aircraft are not expendable single use weapons. To make it worthwhile to have an aircraft it has to fly successfully many many times, at least 100 times. If there is something out there that will, on average, make it possible to fly an aircraft only twice you might as well give up before you even start.
Obviously we don't know if the super high failure rate was due to Russian missile defenses or if it was due to good Russian jamming, or if it was due to cruise missiles that were crap. I doubt they were crap. But we do now know that Russia is not a helpless victim in waiting.
If Russian defenses took out so many missiles, then the obvious best Russian retaliatory/defensive tactic would be:
1. Nuke the warships, and 2. Take the aircraft out with advanced missiles.
America without question has the world's most powerful navy. In fact, America's navy is twice or more as capable as the entire rest of the world combined. But nukes are a serious problem for warships, I'd call the U.S. Navy little more than a way to project power into nations that don't have nuclear weapons. Up against Russia, the navy is toast. Even Kim Jong could probably take the navy out. And the U.S. Navy is such a menace that not nuking it if you could would be the real life manifestation of "Dumb and Dumber". I doubt Russia would be stupid enough to just let the Navy stick a hot fire poker wherever it wanted.
Going up against the U.S. Navy without a nuclear response available would be equal to getting nuked. A nuclear response would be the only correct answer. Therefore, Trump had better keep the navy parked and do nothing against Russia because only one thing will happen if Trump sends a significant portion of the navy to fight Russia: 165 or more U.S. warplanes will be in the air, and have no place to land.
I do not think a war against Russia will be winnable
I don't think a war against China would be winnable. Probably not even India. You might have luck against Pakistan. You would win against North Korea after significant losses. And the answer to why is easy: You can't send a navy against decent quality nukes. Pakistan has very crappy nukes so they are "iffy". But I'd bet Kim Jong could score between 3 and 7 Nimitz class aircraft carriers all by himself. China would eat them all, plus a lot of the U.S. mainland. Russia would be at least 5x worse than China.
The bottom line is that it does not matter how many toys you have, or what your budget is when the people you are attacking have nukes. Nukes are the great equalizer, 20 equal the entire U.S. Navy, and the navy cost 1000 or more times as much. When Russia has many thousands, screwing with that is idiot's play. There is no conceivable way you'd not get hit enough to wipe you out, even if you had a 99 percent kill rate against them.
Let's hope cool heads prevail. But there is a problem: They probably will not, because the Globalists could care less about America, and has a zombie tap right into America's brain. Globalist neocon traitorsin America won't mind poking the bear as long as they can fully put the blame on someone else. THAT is the real danger, don't count on cool heads prevailing when evil people have motives and can cause others to die while accomplishing their goals on behalf of evil.