On Mar 17, 1:50*am, Telamon
wrote:
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.

As are the US Airforce, who are flying similar long range patrols long
after the Cold War era. That's posturing too, in case you have missed
it. The Russian bombers (well, some of them) are designed to carry
cruise missiles, by the way. Even if they were armed with nuclear
warheads (this is all 'ifs' and 'maybes'), you are talking about the
possibility of a very limited tactical nuclear strike. What would be
the point of that? It would have to be part of a scenario involving a
major attack by land and sea launched ICBM's. Is that likely?

Dr. Barry Worthington



--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -