US Navy carrier groups are located in The Persian Gulf, The Red Sea and The Mediterranean. Upwards of fifty ships. They have simple instructions – to fire missiles into Syria when the order comes. This will prompt a response from Russia which possesses hypersonic anti-ship missiles, against which, it is admitted, the US navy has no defence.
In short this is a suicide mission.
Maybe the good old dumb Brits, public school trained you know, will fire the first Tomahawk missiles under orders from Northwood, London, which will trigger the first Russian response. As soon as a response is elicited from Russia, either sinking a submarine or a ship, or a plane, then the whole lot of the carrier groups will be ordered to fire their missiles. We already know from past experience that Syrian/Russian air defences can deal quite effectively with Tomahawks.
If the Russians then deploy their anti-ship missiles, the number of ships to be sunk could be slightly shocking. That this will happen is so obvious that this outcome has to be deliberate. A Pearl Harbor will be created to get WW3 going as it did WW2, with a few thousand young sailors losing their lives.
Only this time around, it won’t necessarily be the US that comes out victorious.
China can watch from the wings as Russia and the US/NATO grind each other down, with Russia shocking the world with the effectiveness of its weaponry. Once the war is showing a clear lean, then China can enlist and fight on the side of the winners. Something tells me that that won’t be NATO or the USA. The Illuminati want a totalitarian regime to rule the world, not a failed democracy. China would be an ideal candidate to crush the US. The exact outcome we cannot know, but the determination to bring about a catastrophe for the US in and around Syria could not be clearer.
Hopefully someone with a brain cell to spare could call the whole thing off, John Bolton and Blair notwithstanding.
Russia’s military options to counter US strike in Syria (PHOTOS)
Washington threatened military action against the Syrian government in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, which incidentally happened exactly a year after the first such America raid against Syria. In April 2017, President Donald Trump was apparently satisfied with a largely symbolic pounding of a Syrian airbase with dozens of Tomahawk missiles.
The current situation appears much tenser, with Russia openly threatening to directly oppose an American attack on Syrian soil. Russia’s determination may be questioned, considering its record of not opposing Israeli raids in Syria, but its capabilities to resist the attack are not in dispute.
Russian troops have two primary sites in Syria, the Khmeimim airbase near the northern port city of Latakia, and the naval facility in Tartus in the northern part of the Syrian coast. Both locations are covered by long-range surface-to-air missiles, including S-400 systems deployed near Khmeimim and S-300VM ones defending Tartus. Both systems have a reported range of up to 400km, depending on the missile used, and are considered among the world’s best long-range anti-missile systems currently in service.
Complementing those interceptors are shorter-range systems, including the middle-range Buk-M2 and the short-range Pantsir S1. The systems are meant to project layers upon layers of anti-access/area denial coverage, defending a strategic site from any threat, from small armed drones and low-flying aircraft, to tactical ballistic missiles.
The presumed weak spot of Russian long-range air defense systems is target acquisition, which requires additional radar coverage. In Syria, it is unlikely to be a problem, however, considering Russia’s use of its counterpart to AWACS, the A-50 airborne radar, and reports that its air defenses have been integrated with older Soviet assets used by the Syrian troops.
The US may try to overwhelm the Russian systems with a barrage of missiles, but the efficiency of the strike will still be significantly reduced.
In a limited missile attack scenario, the Russian military may deliver on the threat it made and retaliate against the origin of the missiles – the US guided-missile destroyers and possibly attack submarines currently deployed in the Mediterranean. Attacking them with lethal force would be a major escalation in the conflict, but the Russian military may use a limited response – using airborne electronic warfare equipment to harass the American ships, messing up their target acquisition, geolocation or even AEGIS anti-aircraft systems. The extent of damage this may cause is debatable, but it would certainly make the job of destroying whatever targets the US command has in mind in Syria much more difficult.