I think we are heading for a new era of a new cold war with russia.
Russia has gotten back it's Soviet attitude. I think obama should take
Russia seriously. Jacob

On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:55:37 -0700, (Jacob Shank)
wrote:

I think we are heading for a new era of a new cold war with russia.
Russia has gotten back it's Soviet attitude. I think obama should take
Russia seriously. Jacob

We can thank george for this. Tons more money for the Military
establishment.

On Mar 18, 5:55*pm, (Jacob Shank) wrote:
I think we are heading for a new era of a new cold war with russia.
Russia has gotten back it's Soviet attitude.

Is that why its military forces evacuated Georgia?

I think obama should take
Russia seriously. Jacob

He is taking Russia seriously. That's why certain people want to
attack him....

Dr. Barry Worthington

In article
,
"Dr. Barry Worthington" wrote:

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'.

It would be better if you made any sense.

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

Are tactical nuclear weapons conventional weapons?

No. Conventional weapons are made of chemical explosives. The yield of
conventional weapons is small compared to nuclear.

A Nuke is a weapon of mass destruction even if it is a small tactical
weapon due to the other heat and radiation effects besides the blast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_weapon

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.

I didn't miss a thing but you have missed a big change in the Russians.

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?

What you think exists doesn't and what you don't think exists does.

You obviously have a talent for making excuses.

For what, exactly?

For the Russians because you are crrrrazy.

By the way the Russians told me they were going to do a flyby of your
place tomorrow. I hope they don't accidentally drop something on your
head as it might get stuck on the point.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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.

JB

In article ,
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.

I don't usually read RHF as his posts are a nightmare. My posts do not
resemble his any more than yours do but you are headed in the direction
of complete incomprehension.

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?

This is Debatable. The bombers can carry cruise missiles that launch
much faster than the subs can and they require us to look in another
place besides the subs.

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 the bombers start making regular patrols that will not be the case.

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.

They have upped the ante with the bomber talk based near us to the south
east and south. We used to have to look just west and north. This will
put regular patrols off our other coasts.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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?

On Mar 19, 12:34*am, Telamon
wrote:
In article
,
*"Dr. Barry Worthington" wrote:





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'.

It would be better if you made any sense.

Grown up people don't react that way. If I make a number of points,
you are supposed to answer them......even if they exasperate you......


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

Are tactical nuclear weapons conventional weapons?

No. Conventional weapons are made of chemical explosives. The yield of
conventional weapons is small compared to nuclear.

A Nuke is a weapon of mass destruction even if it is a small tactical
weapon due to the other heat and radiation effects besides the blast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_weapon

Right, you can use a search engine. Now what has these definitions got
to do with my original point.....that a limited attack by cruise
missiles (assuming that these bombers are carrying them) with tactical
nuclear warheads (assuming that they are fitted with them) would make
no sense at all unless part of an attack by ICBMs?

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.

I didn't miss a thing but you have missed a big change in the Russians.

You actually compare Putin's domestic and foreign posturings with a
Cold War era threat? Do you actually know anything about the current
debate within the Russian military? It's all linked to that.

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?

What you think exists doesn't and what you don't think exists does.

Huh! (As the quaint colonials say.)


You obviously have a talent for making excuses.

For what, exactly?

For the Russians because you are crrrrazy.

What makes you think that? As I said, it would help if you argued
intelligently.....


By the way the Russians told me they were going to do a flyby of your
place tomorrow. I hope they don't accidentally drop something on your
head as it might get stuck on the point.

How old are you?

Now, as you are a complete waste of time, I will leave you to your own
devices...

Goodbye,

Dr. Barry Worthington


--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 19, 1:16*am, David Hartung wrote:
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?

Yes David. We are also aware of the changes afoot within the Russian
military, Medvedev's attemps at reform, and the current splits within
the military hierarchy. And your point is?

Dr. Barry Worthington


- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
On Mar 19, 1:16 am, David Hartung wrote:
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?

Yes David. We are also aware of the changes afoot within the Russian
military, Medvedev's attemps at reform, and the current splits within
the military hierarchy. And your point is?

The post I was responding to seemed to be predicated on the idea that
the Bear is the most up-to-date bomber he Russians possess.