|
Russia may base bombers in cuba
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 |
(OT) : Russia May Base Bombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© Does Nothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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. send in the hillary, Send In The Hillary. SEND IN THE HILLARY ! To Beg Them To Please Stop : Can't We All Play 'Nice' Together ? NOTE - The Obama-Regime© is Planning a +15% Cut in US Defense Spending as a Showing of the USA's Commitment to Peace -while- Both China and Russia are Building-Up Their Military and Increasing Their Defense Spending. PAX-Obama© The Death of a Once Great America ! ~ RHF |
Russia may base bombers in cuba
In article ,
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. I guess boredom set in after hundreds of hours flying and they got to do something exciting. That had to be quite a sight with a bomber that close. How fast do you think they were traveling when they flew by you? -- Telamon Ventura, California |
Russia may base bombers in cuba
Telamon wrote: In article , 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. I guess boredom set in after hundreds of hours flying and they got to do something exciting. That had to be quite a sight with a bomber that close. How fast do you think they were traveling when they flew by you? Not terribly fast, at least at the time. I'd guess 150 to 200 MPH. There were several of them in most cases. Quite the site. An interesting aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 |
Russia may base bombers in cuba
dxAce wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , 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. I guess boredom set in after hundreds of hours flying and they got to do something exciting. That had to be quite a sight with a bomber that close. How fast do you think they were traveling when they flew by you? Not terribly fast, at least at the time. I'd guess 150 to 200 MPH. There were several of them in most cases. Quite the site. An interesting aircraft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95 I just noticed this, in the above article: During the height of the Cold War, the long range of the Tu-95 was demonstrated weekly as a pair of Tu-95s would fly from the Kola peninsula to Cuba along the east coast of the United States, escorted continuously along the way.[7] This is obviously what some of us were listening to, back in the day. dxAce Michigan USA |
(OT) : Russia May Base Bombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© Does Nothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
~ 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. "If the members of the Obama administration would bother to take a stroll down memory lane, they might recall that once upon a time there was a document called the anti-ballistic missile treaty, signed in 1972 between the United States and the former Soviet Union, which recognized that anti-missile defense shields were inherently destabilizing, and as such should not be deployed. The ABM treaty represented the foundational agreement for a series of strategic arms limitation and arms reduction agreements that followed. President Obama was 10 years old when that treaty was signed. He was 40 years old when President George W. Bush withdrew from it, in December 2001, and set in motion a series of events that saw arms control between the U.S. and Russia completely unravel. The proposed U.S. missile defense shield, to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic, had the Russians talking about scrapping the INF treaty (which eliminated two classes of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that threatened Europe) and deploying highly accurate SS-21 “Iskander” missiles within striking range of the proposed Polish interceptor site. Russia did not create the missile defense system crisis. The United States did, and, as such, cannot expect to suddenly receive diplomatic credit when it puts this controversial program on the foreign policy gaming table as if it were a legitimate chip to be bargained away. Russia has always, correctly, claimed that any missile defense system deployed in Eastern Europe can only be directed at Russia. While both the Bush and Obama administrations denied that was the case, Poland has all but admitted its concerns are not about missiles coming from Tehran, but rather missiles coming from Moscow. The American “sweetener” for a potential Polish loss of a missile shield is to offer Poland advanced Patriot surface-to-air missiles, whose intended target is clearly not a Persian missile which cannot reach Polish soil, but rather Russian missiles and aircraft which can. There are three basic facts that the Obama administration needs to address, but as of yet has not: First, missile defense systems are inherently destabilizing and only contribute to the acquisition of offensive counters designed to defeat those defenses. Second, the rapid expansion of NATO in the past decade has in fact threatened Russia. And third, the Iranian missile “threat” to Europe has always been illusory." http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...a_meet_team_b/ |
(OT) : Russia May Base Bombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© Does Nothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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. "If the members of the Obama administration would bother to take a stroll down memory lane, they might recall that once upon a time there was a document called the anti-ballistic missile treaty, signed in 1972 between the United States and the former Soviet Union, which recognized that anti-missile defense shields were inherently destabilizing, and as such should not be deployed. The ABM treaty represented the foundational agreement for a series of strategic arms limitation and arms reduction agreements that followed. President Obama was 10 years old when that treaty was signed. He was 40 years old when President George W. Bush withdrew from it, in December 2001, and set in motion a series of events that saw arms control between the U.S. and Russia completely unravel. The proposed U.S. missile defense shield, to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic, had the Russians talking about scrapping the INF treaty (which eliminated two classes of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles that threatened Europe) and deploying highly accurate SS-21 “Iskander” missiles within striking range of the proposed Polish interceptor site. Russia did not create the missile defense system crisis. The United States did, and, as such, cannot expect to suddenly receive diplomatic credit when it puts this controversial program on the foreign policy gaming table as if it were a legitimate chip to be bargained away. 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? |
(OT) : Russia May Base Bombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© Does Nothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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. |
(OT) : Russia May Base Bombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© Does Nothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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. |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba :Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America'sSovereignty
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 |
(OT) : Russia May Base Bombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© Does Nothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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. |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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. |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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. |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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? |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba :Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America'sSovereignty
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 |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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 |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba :Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America'sSovereignty
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 |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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 - |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba :Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America'sSovereignty
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 |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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 - |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba :Obama-Regime© DoesNothi...
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 |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothi...
|
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothi...
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 |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba :Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America'sSovereignty
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 |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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 |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba :Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America'sSovereignty
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 |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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? |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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 - |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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 - |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba : Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America's Sovereignty
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. |
(OT) : Russia May BaseBombers in Cuba :Obama-Regime© DoesNothing to Protect America'sSovereignty
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com