David Hartung wrote:
dave wrote:
David Hartung wrote:


Missile defense systems are defensive. The idea that a defensive
system is destabilizing is completely ludicrous.

Bombers are by their very nature offensive. An Russian offensive
weapon deployed to the western hemisphere is by its very nature
destabilizing.

See the difference?

No. It is all quite insane.

I agree, war is insane, but it is sometimes necessary.

One could very logically make the argument that Russia's belligerence
the past few years well justifies any defensive system we may wish to
deploy.

I would worry more if Russia were not belligerent.

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.

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.

Exactly what do you see as stable? Unilateral disarmament.

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.

By the way, if your opponent deploys a weapon which is strictly
defensive, why would you need a countermeasure, unless you intend to
engage in offensive action?

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.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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.

JB

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

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 -

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

On Mar 18, 1:05*am, Telamon
wrote:
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.

It would be better if you actually tried to answer points instead of
calling me a 'nutcase'.


There is no comparison between conventional and nuclear weapons where
one is a reasonable response to the other.

Are tactical nuclear weapons conventional weapons?

It is a clear escalation of
the current cold war by the Russians.

I wasn't aware that there was a Cold War. In case you missed it, it
ended in 1991. Look, both the American and Russian air forces make
these flights. Both are engaged in a largely pointless exercise. How
is it an escalation of something that doesn't exist?


You obviously have a talent for making excuses.

For what, exactly?

Dr. Barry Worthington


--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -