In article
,
"Dr. Barry Worthington" wrote:

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.

Yeah they do all the time.

If I make a number of points, you are supposed to answer
them......even if they exasperate you......

I'm not obligated to answer any of your points especially the
nonsensical ones.

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.

That's not where my knowledge comes from but you can't even take the
time to do that.

Now what has these definitions got to do with my original
point.....

There are no "points to make" if a common lexicon does not exist.

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?

You are clearly out of your mind.

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?

Yes.

Do you actually know anything about the current
debate within the Russian military? It's all linked to that.

No.

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.)

This quaint colonial now states "exactly."

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?

I'm old enough to know better but you obviously are not.

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

Yes, you are a complete waste of time.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California