Syrian President Bashar Assad's office has strongly condemned the US missile attack against a military airfield in the country’s central province of Homs, describing it as“reckless and irresponsible behavior.”

The statement pointed out that the assault showed Washington is “naively pulled behind a false propaganda campaign” - a reference to accusations that the Damascus government was responsible for the suspected chemical incident in the town of Khan Shaykhun, which reportedly left over 80 people dead.

The statement from the Syrian presidential office further noted that the US missile attack had boosted the Syrian government’s resolve to crush foreign-sponsored Takfiri terrorist groups, vowing to expedite the pace of clean-up operations against the extremists.

The Pentagon said 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from two warships in the Mediterranean at the Shayrat airfield early on Friday. US officials claim that Tuesday's attack in Khan Shaykhun had been launched from the military site.

The US military said the missiles severely damaged or destroyed Syrian aircraft and support infrastructure and equipment at the airfield.

At least nine people were killed in the early morning strike, according to Syria’s official news agency, SANA. Syria has denounced the US “aggression” as a violation of the international law.

'Flagrant aggression'

Meanwhile, Syria's Foreign Ministry condemned the US strike as "a flagrant aggression" against the Arab country, and said Washington’s real objective was to "weaken the strength of the Syrian army in confronting terrorist groups."

In a Friday statement, the ministry described the Khan Shaykhun attack as a "premeditated action that aimed to justify the launching of a US attack on the Syrian army."

The Russian Foreign Ministry also censured the attack as an aggression against a sovereign state.

Russian Defense Ministry's Spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said Moscow considers the US attack on Shayrat airfield a gross violation of a memorandum on the safety of flights over Syria, and consequently suspends cooperation with Washington meant to avoid incidents in Syrian airspace.

Konashenkov further noted that only 23 missiles from US destroyers reached the targeted Syrian airfield, emphasizing it is unclear where the other 36 landed.

Lavrov hopes US strikes wouldn't cause 'irreparable damage'

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed hope that the US missile strike on Syria would not irreparably damage relations between Moscow and Washington.

“This is an act of aggression, on an absolutely made-up pretext," Lavrov told a news conference in the Uzbek capital city of Tashkent.

“It reminds me of the situation in 2003 when the United States and Britain, along with some of their allies, attacked Iraq,” the top Russian diplomat said.

He said Russia would demand that US explain the reason behind its strike, noting that no Russian servicemen are known to have been killed in the assault.

“I hope this provocation will not lead to irreparable damage (to US-Russian ties),” Lavrov said.

Russia: Syrian air defenses to be 'strengthened'

Furthermore, Russia's military has termed the US missile attack on the Syrian airbase as ineffective, stressing that Syrian air defenses would be strengthened to shield the country's key infrastructure.

“To protect Syria's most sensitive infrastructure, a complex of measures will be implemented in the near future to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the Syrian armed forces' air defense system,” Konashenkov said in a statement.

He added the strike had had an “extremely low” military impact.

‘Russian air, naval bases in Syria protected by air defense systems’

Additionally, Viktor Ozerov, the chairman of the defense committee in the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament, said Russia's airbase in Syria’s western province of Latakia plus its naval facility in the western coastal province of Tartus are protected by S-300 and S-400 air missile defense systems..

“The S-300 and S-400 missile complexes....adequately guarantee the security of our armed forces on land as well as by sea and air,” he said.

As Paul Joseph Watson details, pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer before the attack, with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.

“It looks like maybe somebody didn’t like that so there had to be an episode,” said Paul, asking, “who benefits?”

“It doesn’t make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there’s zero chance he would have done this deliberately,” said Paul.

The former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons and the deep state to enlist support for war.

“It’s the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it’s derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria,” said Paul.

Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels.

Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, “The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,” implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.

Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East?

GETTY IMAGES

GETTY IMAGES

GETTY IMAGES

Trump ordered two US Navy warships to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles which rained down on an air base near Homs.

Evidence suggests that it was from here that regime planes carrying the murderous gas bombs took off, according to the President.

The UK called the deadly riposte — which completely destroyed the base and killed personnel — an "appropriate" response to Assad's barbaric slaughter of around 100 people, including children.

But in a sign of how risky the move was, the Pentagon revealed that it had given prior warning to the Russians before launching the missile strike.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent more than 4,000 troops to Syria, backed by planes to support Assad, who has been accused of horrific war crimes.

Some claim the action, consistently avoided under the Obama administration despite his talk of a "red line" being crossed, may eventually pave the way to conflict between old foes America and Russia.

But others believe the move has made war less of a possibility, including Britain's former ambassador to Moscow, Sir Anthony Brenton, who believes that while Putin is gearing up for war, he doesn't really want one because his military is 'weaker' than the West's.

Speaking to the Daily Mirror in October last year, he said: "They do not want war. They would lose.

"These shows of strength are not an intention to fight, but a signal that fighting must be avoided."

But if a third global conflict does break out, how will it start, where would it start, what will it look like, and who's going to win?

If World War Three does kick off how could it start?

There was a time when it seemed like the prospect of war with the likes of Russia and China had disappeared with the end of the Cold War.

But tense relationships between the world's major military players means that the outbreak of another global conflict has been raised again.

Russia and America's involvement in the war in Syria has created a situation where the two nations' planes are reportedly flying dangerously close to each other on bombing runs.

Strongman Russian leader Vladimir Putin has also deployed warships to the Baltic Sea carrying nuclear-capable missiles.

Russian media claimed the ships were strategically placed to have European cities in their sights.

Putin's warships also sailed down the English Channel while being "man marked every step of the way" by the Royal Navy.

In recent years Russia has engaged in conflicts in Georgia, Syria, and the Ukraine.

They have also recently unveiled their Satan 2 nuclear missile which is thought to be the most powerful warhead ever made.

If World War Three does kick off it seems the Russians will have something to do with it but it is more likely that if it ever did happen, it would be sparked hundreds of miles away from Syria.

An expert claimed Latvia will be Ground Zero — the country where the next global conflict will begin.

Professor Paul D Miller of the National Defence University in Washington DC — who predicted the invasion of Crimea and the Ukraine conflict — said the Baltic state is next on Russia's hit list.

But Putin won't use conventional troops. Instead, he will recreate what happened in Ukraine and stir up the patriotism of ethnic Russians in the country.

"Putin will instigate an ambiguous militarised crisis using deniable proxies, probably in the next two years", he said.

The shock presidential election win of brash billionaire Trump led to speculation that his fiery temperament could lead to a global war.

But the President admitted it is “very scary” to have his finger on the nuclear button and knows all too well the consequences of his actions.

Before launching the Tomahawk strikes on Syria, the tycoon is said to have relied on seasoned military experts rather than the political operatives who had dominated policy in the first weeks of his presidency.

One official said: “He had a lot of questions and said he wanted to think about it but he also had some points he wanted to make. He wanted the options refined."

And under the United States Constitution, the president must obtain congressional approval before taking the US to war against a sovereign nation that has not attacked or threatened to attack the US or its allies.

And world leaders were quick to praise his response in the hours that followed.

ALAMY

Why might someone want to start a deadly global war?

A conflict could be deliberately sparked by countries wanting to change the the world's balance of power.

President Xi Jinping of China made a connection between military strength and being a global power in his "Chinese dream" speech.

The Chinese premier has envisioned a concept called "Guanjun Guoji Genti" - which centres around the idea of replacing the US as the world's leading power.

China's growing economy means it may want to reorder the global system to play to its strengths.

World War Three could be a result of China flexing its muscles to sweep the US aside.

The two nations are involved in a tense stand-off over the South China Sea and Taiwan which could spark a military incident.

But just how long simmering tensions could escalate into a global military conflict remain to be seen.

However, both the US and China, major trading partners, would suffer immense economic harm in the event of a war. A war in the Pacific would also cripple China's vital sea trade.

GETTY IMAGES

Cyber and space: how events could unfold

The terrifying thing about a new global conflict is how much more sophisticated and dangerous warfare techniques are now compared to what we think of conventional warfare.

The war would feature domains that didn't feature in previous conflicts, namely cyberspace and space itself.

Military satellites are in the Earth's orbit and more than 80 per cent of Nato's military communications travel on commercial satellites.

This makes them targets that are arguably as strategically important as airfields or shipyards.

China is said to have incredible anti-satellite capabilities and Russia is also believed to be working on weapons that will target Nato's space systems.

The US military budgeted $5bn this year for its space war strategy.

Cyber warfare is already well underway as Chinese hacking groups have penetrated a US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The plane was designed to give Western countries a huge advantage on the battlefield a generation ahead.

However after its hacking activity China is now preparing to export its own J-31 plane, which is said to look almost completely identical.

China is also said to have stolen 1.1m fingerprints from the US.

World War Three would involve a high degree of cyber theft and cyber attacks.

Russia used cyber attacks to damage communications in their conflict with Ukraine.

The US has used a Stuxnet digital weapon to damage Iranian nuclear research facilities.

Are American billionaires preparing for nuclear fallout?

It was recently reported that wealthy tech moguls are preparing for the apocalypse by buying island properties and investing in pimped out nuclear bunkers.

Dinner party conversations in Silicon Valley are now dominated by talk of society crumbling amid nuclear war and what steps the billionaire elites are taking to avoid the fallout, reports the New Yorker.

The news outlet spoke with Larry Hall, the CEO of the Survival Condo Project, which is a 15 storey nuclear warhead silo in Kansas which as been turned into luxury doomsday properties.

In 2008, Hall paid $300,000 for the silo and spent nearly $20million refurbishing it for anxious wealthy investors.

He has now sold all the private apartments – 12 including one for himself – for $3million each.

New Zealand is one of the most popular places in the world for tech moguls to buy ‘apocalypse insurance’.

A record number of Americans reportedly bought property in the far flung island nation in the seven days after Donald Trump’s shock election win.

LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman told the magazine “saying you’re ‘buying a house in New Zealand’ is kind of a wink, wink, say no more.”

SURVIVAL CONDO / LARRY HALL

Now images have emerged of some of the luxurious bunkers that the super rich have been preparing to spend an auspicious Armageddon.

The world’s filthy rich residents are preparing for nuclear warfare, a disease pandemic, zombie apocalypses and natural disasters by investing in five star luxury bunkers.

“Your father or grandfather’s bunker was not very comfortable,” Robert Vicino, the CEO of high-end shelter company Vivos, told CNN.

“They were grey. They were metal, like a ship or something military. And the truth is mankind cannot survive long-term in such a Spartan, bleak environment.”

The reinforced homes are being built across the globe from the USA to the Czech Republic.

How would the UK perform in World War Three?

If the recently retired commander of joint forces command Sir Richard Barrons is to be believed, the UK is totally incapable of defending itself against an attack from a country such as Russia.

Sir Barrons delivered a scathing assessment of the UK military in a 10-page private memorandum to the defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon.

His remarks came as the UK announced it would increase defence spending by nearly £5bn by 2020/21.

In a document seen by the Financial Times, Sir Richard Barrons said: "Capability that is foundational to all major armed forces has been withered by design.

“There is a sense that modern conflict is ordained to be only as small and as short term as we want to afford, and that is absurd.

“The failure to come to terms with this will not matter at all if we are lucky in the way the world happens to turn out, but it could matter a very great deal if even a few of the risks now at large conspire against the UK.”

Who would win the war?

This is an impossible question to answer with any certainty, but if you are basing it solely on hardware it would seem the US is in the best position to win.

The US is the only country in possession of fifth-gen fighter jets - 187 F-22s and an F-35 that is not yet out of the testing phase.

Russia is developing one stealth fighter and China is working on four.

In terms of submarines the US Navy has 14 ballistic missile submarines with a combined 280 nuclear missiles.

They also possess four guided missile submarines with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each and 54 nuclear attack submarines.

Russia has only 60 submarines but they are said to have outstanding stealth capabilities.

They are also developing a 100-megaton nuclear torpedo.

China has five nuclear attack submarines, 53 diesel attack submarines, and four nuclear ballistic missile submarines to date.

However, the emerging superpower is developing more.


(thesun.co.uk)