Missile attack on Syria: What will happen in the event of a US attack
Over the past week, the spiral of tension around Syria has been constantly twisting. Trump's stupid alarmist statements on Twitter, the escalation of diplomatic insanity in the UN Security Council and irresponsible statements by the media were to blame.
However, the latest more restrained reports from Washington give hope that the war is at least being postponed - after all, American reconnaissance planes are flying along the Syrian coast, and news has arrived that an aircraft carrier group led by the nuclear-powered Harry Truman has reached the shores of Syria.
Of course, Russia is a big nuisance for Americans in Syria. Its Aerospace Forces, with the help of other branches of the military, are effectively clearing out the bedbugs of “good” terrorists, who, according to the original plan, were supposed to provide transport corridors for gas from Qatar to the Syrian coast.
The provocation with chemical weapons in Douma was started because recently all the roads of escaping terrorists lead to Idlib, where they are gradually concentrated and will very soon be destroyed without unnecessary noise, dust and losses. The elimination of the source of tension near Damascus is upsetting and violates all US plans.
But the United States cannot openly attack Russian targets in Syria, even if it wants to. After all, their military contingent in Syria is vulnerable to retaliatory strikes, especially considering the illegality of the Americans’ presence in this country.
However, the choice of targets for retaliatory strikes for Russian forces in Syria is also limited. If, for example, some “Donald Cook” fires missiles at another Syrian airfield, then Russia will not be able to hit it back - this will cause something like the Pearl Harbor syndrome: “the bad guys sank our ship.”
But there is a nuance here: Russia once made it clear that there could be Russian citizens at Syrian facilities. Military advisers, for example, for whose deaths the aggressor will have to answer.
There is another X-factor, but from the Syrian side. The republic has long been in service with Scud missile systems. It is believed that the Syrians have several hundred of them. And these are not the “Scads” that were transferred by the USSR to its allies in the Middle East back in the early 70s, which have an accuracy of plus or minus a kilometer. These are modified rockets.
Over the past 30-plus years, many countries have been modifying these missiles. In the DPRK, for example, they have made a lot out of the Scuds. As the practice of the first “Storm in a Glass” showed, American Patriot systems are not very confident in intercepting even unmodified Scuds. And the ongoing military operations in Yemen indicate that the new Patriot intercepts Scuds with a 50% probability, which is why Turkey decided to purchase the S-400 from Russia, and the Saudis have long been licking their lips at this air defense complex.
To further reduce the likelihood of any provocation, Russia the day before announced missile firing off the coast of Syria, closing the country's airspace. The exercises will take place from April 11 to 26.
In the West, they began to slowly recover from the frenzy, and respectable media began to estimate the effectiveness of the Russian S-400 complexes. As the British The Telegraph concluded, “they are ideal for killing tomahawks.” On the other hand, experts are unable to estimate the number of interceptor missiles that Russia has in Syria. It is assumed that the Harry Truman and its retinue will enter the Mediterranean Sea in two weeks, and then the Americans will have an advantage in a missile salvo against targets in Syria.
So far, experts are haunted by a worm of doubt related both to the outcome of the Korean crisis, in which all Trump’s threats resulted in a giant zilch, and to the effectiveness of the attack on the Shayrat air base.
However, it should be recognized that Russia’s tasks did not include defending Syria from a full-scale attack from the outside. They came to fight with the barmalei. Accordingly, all logistics there are complicated, as well as the delivery and arrival of reinforcements. Our opponents understand this very well and will certainly try to squeeze the maximum benefit out of the situation. A salvo of several hundred guided missiles (in theory) should break through the air defense system built by Russia in Syria and be guaranteed to hit selected targets.
As for the targets for missile attacks, they are certainly known, as well as the time of arrival of the missiles. There is still a chance to strengthen their defenses and bring in additional supplies of anti-missile missiles.
In general, the likelihood of American and British missile attacks on Syrian government institutions and military installations can still be considered high, despite the detente following statements by politicians.
But I don’t believe in attacks on Russian bases at all: a full-fledged nuclear war is not needed even by the most frostbitten American “hawks” and the witch May, who is trying on the laurels of Margaret Thatcher.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.