John Barnard wrote:
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.

You can't think for yourself let alone anyone else but I do see that is
a trait that you picked up from your daddy, RHF.

Bombers are the most vulnerable part of the triad. Do you really think
that a slow as molasses Tu-54 is going to make it anywhere near the USA?
Take put the airfield before the bombers can get up in the air and the
bomber is as useless as you are on the best of days.

If they want to up the ante, see if they station alot more subs off the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the USA. The we'll talk.

You are aware that the Russians have strategic bombers a lot more up to
date than the bear?