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, 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.