But once we're committed we better not back down from anyone. That would be a catastrophe. The better question is would Russia back down.

to take power in Russia. This means he's going to double down on any military confrontation with the U.S.

It could, in fact, be World War III

It's the Cuban Missile crisis all over again under a whole new light. .

I studied force in international politics in the 70's. Concentrated in it with my Poly Sci degree. And this whole thing has all kinds of nuclear deterrence issues. It used to be that mutually assured destruction is what kept a "rational" world from self destruction. But has that so-called Balance of Terror changed with reductions in nuclear weapons? Can a country rationalize that they can 50 years later survive a nuclear war?

Lots of issues. Right now I'd be moving that Doomsday Clock up to about 11:59. The ghost of John Foster Dulles and his brinkmanship strategy is back.

unless homelands were threatened. I assume both countries still have a handful of rational people in administration and military.
However, I don't think Russia will stand by if US strikes Syria or sends in troops. There will be an all-out conventional war. US will lose a lot of men, aircraft, and armored vehicles...possibly several ships. Russia will incur big losses too. Perhaps either Iran or Israel takes advantage of the confusion to strike the other? Definitely the whole middle east will blow up.

As long as those weapons exist I don't think so. We have them for a reason. During the Cold War the idea was to never have US and Soviet troops in a confrontation or else the likelihood for the use of nuclear weapons would increase exponentially. And the same held true for attacking the other's close allies. The faces are different and communism is dead, but the people are the same. Scares the hell out of me.

They probably view Assad as expendable, but want "their guy" in charge. I don't think Putin will tuck his tail between his legs and meekly give up Syria without a fight. It would likely mean the end of hos political career.

OTOH, both US and Russia have made big strides in nuclear disarmament. I don't think either country wants to turn the clock back 50 years. Thus, although direct US involvement in Syria will likely involve fighting Russian troops, I don't think either side will use nukes unless home soil is threatened.

My favorite quote from War Tard.

Hell, if you think this is scary, I've got news for you: as a student of history, I can tell you this is a fuckin' cakewalk compared to 1962, when Russo-American tensions were at the highest that they'd ever had gotten(or would since), and there truly was a very real chance of WWIII breaking out over Cuba. Syria? While a regional war isn't impossible by any means, it's extremely unlikely it would turn into WWIII: India almost certainly wouldn't want to be involved; China *definitely* wouldn't, as they've got too much at stake. Even the Brits are wanting to sit this one out. And as much of a crook and puppet for TPTB as Putin really is, I doubt he'd be willing to go as far as to gamble with his entire country and it's 160+ million people.....that would require Hitlerian levels of madness......

Ever heard of the movie "By Dawn's Early Light"? In that movie, Russian ultra-nationalists seized a submarine and launched a false-flag nuclear attack on *their own country*....and from a rather convenient location. But unless either of these things happen.....there'd be more chance of any of us being killed in a car accident during the next 12 months than for Armageddon over Syria.

I wasn't exactly nostalgic for 1962, but what the hell. Brinkmanship with a nuclear armed power with ships deployed near their bases, while we operate without so much as a nod from any international organization. This is going to end well.

Hrm. Really? I think in the face of a full out world war, backing down is one of the least stupid options

what would happen. Thats one of the useful things about the NSA at a time like this. And we damn well better know exactly what each and every primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. consequence is for each scenario with contingency plans for each possibility and the ability to go with a contingency if necessary.

The problem is assigning the correct or close enough probability to what Russia will do in an unemotional and unbiased way. Iran doesn't matter.

I'm not nearly stupid enough or controlled enough to really give a shit about any of that. The US and its shiny technology isn't nearly cool enough to have me interested in whether it can save itself from its own brought on demise. I just don't fuckn care. If that's your dog in the fight, then yay and all that good stuff. How fuckn exhausting

"Backward, Christian Soldiers"

I still get a chuckle out of that one

""

Iran and Russia start dick measuring, and we measure back, then they gotta step it up, etc, etc, etc....

If that were the case, then yes, it becomes a world war. But the OP probably isn't realistic

re-institute military conscription (aka "the draft&quot in the interest of not backing down?

And already know what they would do. It would take a year to conscript that many troops. But we have lots of options other than troops.

placing so much faith in the wisdom and perspicacity of the "decisions makers".

Iran and Russia have a lot of options too.

Put another way, we'll fight the war we want to fight but they will fight the war they want to fight.

Iran also has some 80,000 troops in its Revolutionary Guards.

They don't have a chance against a real military. I think they'd likely surrender to the first Americans they see like in Iraq.

at best only ever achieved a stalemate in Iraq against irregulars.

Then I realized you were dissing the Iranian military instead and insulting the bravery and courage of its forces.

Funny, I don't recall any Iranians surrendering to Americans. And I seem to recall that, starting in April 2004, the irregulars in Iraq opened up a can of serious whoop-ass on our forces in Iraq. Remember Casey Sheehan?

Maybe I'm mis-remembering or mis-construing your remarks. Somehow, I don't think so.

Your arrogance reminds me of the attitude of the German Imperial General Staff ca. 1913-14. Again, maybe I'm misconstruing.

And I'm wondering if they're so bad why they only fought Iraq to a stalemate in the 80's.

acquaintance with the Iraq-Iran War of the 80s. So I in turn suspect you have some ulterior motive to your 'wondering'.

That said, I don't have references at hand, so this must remain a thumb-nail sketch. First of all, the Iraqi regime was very nearly over-run by the Iranians in the early 80s. This led to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and the UK providing intelligence and materiel assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite intelligence about Iranian troop concentrations and pre-cursors to chemical weapons. The U.S and Saudi Arabia each had reasons that, while intersecting at various points, did not exactly coincide. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the Riyadh administration sought to check the spread of what was perceived as Shia extremism into Iraq's largely Shiite population in the south or Iraq and Saudi's Shiite citizens, themselves concentrated in, where else?, Saudi oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia. This latter explains the U.S. interest in aiding Saddam, protecting our client Saudi Arabia and our continued access to cheap and stable supplies of ME oil.

The military intelligence we provided to Saddam was vital, because it allowed him to use chemical munitions against said Iranian troop concentrations and neutralize greatly the Iranians' numerical superiority.

Do note that at the exact same time we were re-establishing diplomatic relations with Saddam's Iraq and becoming a defacto backstop for him, we were SIMULTANEOUSLY providing arms to Iran (the infamous arms-for-hostages component of Iran-Contra). People in the region are well aware of our perfidy in arming both sides of the war, since their memories extend further back than who was this season's winner of American Idol.

That's by-the-by, I suppose, but one key thing to remember is that the rank and file Iranian soldier was incredibly brave and withstood suffering our troops can only dream about thus far. The Iranians endured staggering losses and kept coming, a lesson that few Americans are prepared to wrap their minds around. (Americans have forgotten the experience of their troops in Korea north of the 38th parallel when Chinese troops crossed the Yalu.) Given the dick-swinging on display lately, Americans may have plenty of opportunity to become fully acquainted in the not-so-distant future.

In signing off tonight, I present for your viewing pleasure a little blast from the photographic past (1983), before Saddam was the Great Satan and was seen as the last bastion against Iranian extremism taking over the Arabain peninsula:



In case you were wondering, Saddam is shaking the hand of Donald Rumsfeld, Reagan's secret envoy to Baghdad to re-establish diplomatic relations and start providing military assistance to the Iraqis.

and was round DU regularly during the war with Iraq.

Then I must be selling the Iran troops short. In any event, that now famous line from the movie The Princess Bride is applicable now as much as ever: "never get involved in a land war in Asia".

Because Syria is going to crack down harder after the strikes and it will be a very difficult position to be in. Syria might even use chemical weapons again (but if they did then even Russia would be on board).

Besides, it would provide a swifter death for my children than the long drawn out starvation climate change promises them (which no one will do anything about either). Since this eternally stupid species is destined to fuck it up, let's shake it up a little first I guess.

with anything you've written here.

scares the shit out of me and others who have studied August 1913.

Why people are so quick to advocate military action against a country in which Russia has a naval base and subsequently think the Russians will just sit on their hands about it is so fucking beyond me.

The gas attack is horrible, yes, but detonating a damn powder keg could get millions killed.

Can you even imagine if Russia started setting up bases all over Latin America, killing and mutilating innocents every step of the way? Claiming the right to cross a fucking ocean and destroy sovereign nations, economies and lives for oil and empire and expect no retaliation. That takes some unbelievable arrogance.