In article ,
dave wrote:

~ RHF wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:34 am, dxAce wrote:

- Monitoring opportunities?
-
- http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/art...1&aid=29691183
- (via SmokeyKat, MilCom list)
-
- That photo sure brings back memories.
- I remember those boys buzzing us from time
- to time just above the deck and a few hundred feet away.
- We'd wave at each other!
-
- Later, I remember monitoring them as they
- transited along the east coast USA, sending
- position reports in Russian Morse. At the time
- there was an article in either PopCom or
- Monitoring Times giving details on how to
- decode those posit reports.
-
- dxAce
- Michigan
- USA

Meanwhile the Obama-Regime© does nothing
to protect America's Sovereignty from this
encroachment by Russia into Cuba putting
Bombers and ?Missiles? within a few Miles
of the US Mainland.


We are putting missiles on Russia's doorstep. This is their response.

SNIP

They are not nuclear missiles Dave.

They are conventional defense missiles.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

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

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