View Single Post
  #19   Report Post  
Old March 18th 09, 01:05 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
,
"Dr. Barry Worthington" wrote:

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?


You are a nutcase if you think anyone is going to buy this line of
thought and I'm being polite calling it that.

There is no comparison between conventional and nuclear weapons where
one is a reasonable response to the other. It is a clear escalation of
the current cold war by the Russians.

You obviously have a talent for making excuses.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California