Posted on 04/02/2016 4:39:39 AM PDT by PIF
Russia has deployed its most advanced tactical missile system, the Iskander-M, in Syria in the last few days, debkafile reports exclusively from its military and intelligence sources. The Russian Iskander is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and has never been made available to any foreign army for operational use.
No nuclear-capable surface missiles were deployed in any Arab country bordering on Israel since 2007 when Chinese DF-21 missiles were installed in Saudi Arabia.
The Russian missiles (NATO codenamed SS-26) have a range of 500 kilometers (see map).
So what... the Saudi’s have the chinese version of them.
Why is the fact that the SS-26 is nuclear capable even relevant? It’s extremely accurate as a conventional ballistic missile with a thousand pound payload, and that is how they are certain to have deployed it. I expect it to be used too - this is Russia’s first big chance to test their systems in combat since Afghanistan.
If you are correct anything the Saudis have is without the nukes ... and there is no Chinese version that is anywhere near comparable to the Iskander in abilities or configurations. And not to put too fine a point on it, Putin has said use of tactical nukes is not ruled out in Syria ... these are the missiles which can deliver any nukes to be used. Definitely not insignificant.
Relevant because Putin has said use of tactical nukes in Syria is a possibility.
I cannot imagine Putin deploying tactical nukes in Syria. If he wanted to use them, I would expect them to be delivered from outside the combat zone. Russia, even more than us, does not want any risk of nukes in the hands of Obama’s terrorist allies.
Putin said it so take it up with him, is all I can say. The missiles are there and there surely are warheads on the Navy ships offshore. Simple matter to transfer and arm. The misslies are stationed on a Russian held airbase, not under SAA control so your premise is wrong. If anything the nukes would be used on 0bama’s terrorist buddies or the Turks.
“Nuclear capable” is a meaningless BS term.
Any aircraft with a bomb rack on it is nuclear capable.
Any missile with a 100 lb. payload is nuclear capable.
Any large artillery piece is nuclear capable.
“Nuclear capable” is like describing a truck as being “weapons transport capable”.
Oh right! I forgot the Russians do not make missiles able to carry nuclear warheads .. just harmless ones with colored smoke and party favors ... they are so backwards ... perhaps these carry pink high heels as well - Russian troops just crave them ... but then, any truck could carry all that stuff, so it is as you so sagaciously point out, just plain BS.
Think you need to reread the my post.
“Nuclear capable” isn’t BS because the Russians don’t have such weapon systems, its BS because it describes so many of them. All tactical aircraft, all warships, most heavy rockets.
So using the term without any evidence of intent is total BS.
Therefore your comment is without meaning or merit.
Don’t be a dumbass.
It’s an article with no real information, but the intent to scare based on ambiguity.
Really? So information no matter how skimpy is to be ignored? Well should we just go back to reading political news and skip the rest?
Pointless information is to be ignored, yes.
So are pointless people.
Hey, a nuclear capable aircraft just flew over my house. Think I should start a thread?
The U.S. has over a dozen nuclear capable ships in the Mediterranean Sea right now, you’d better start a thread.
My neighbor jut bought a truck capable of hauling dynamite. Think I should notify the police?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.