View Single Post
  #17   Report Post  
Old March 17th 09, 01:50 AM posted to rec.radio.shortwave,alt.religion.christian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media
Telamon Telamon is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,494
Default (OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba :Obama-RegimeŠ DoesNothing to Protect America'sSovereignty

In article ,
John Barnard wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
dave wrote:

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
We are putting missiles on Russia's doorstep. This is their response.
SNIP

They are not nuclear missiles Dave.

They are conventional defense missiles.

For which the effective countermeasure IS a nuclear weapon. The end
result is the same; destabilization and menace.


The nukes on the bombers are offensive weapons. There is no comparison
to a conventional defensive missile. You are not making sense.

These defensive missiles are designed to shoot down an ICBM. These
handful of missiles could also stop ICBM's from Russia but they can only
stop a few at best and Russia has thousands. Since this is the case why
should Russia be concerned? It's not like a Russia nuclear response
could be compromised in some way by them.


It's posturing on the part of the Russians. There's no sense in placing
nukes on a bomber when launching them from a sub. is way more advantageous.


With your logic then there should be no bombers at all. The bombers are
designed to carry nukes and the Russians are intent on flying them so
you must be wrong about that.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California