It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russians claim bomber flights over US territory went undetected

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarXBecause the original article did not say where it got the information from which is not even legal last i checked.
Well if it's not legal why should it be credible. The US kep their U2 overflights ecret and didn't announce them publicly.


You should talk?
No i was simply pinting out if you could there's no point in telling everyone and annoumcing it because it's important.


I assume on the US side? Do we know that was not in fact true?


I don't understand make your point cleaer . Russian news sources lie as well.


Western media lies far more often than anyone gives it credit for and it is simply not held accountable for it. You have no idea just yet but that does not surprise me either.
All media lies russian media is no exception there has been plenty of instances where that has happened. No news media is completely reliable.


Us drones may on occasion enter Iranian air space but i doubt they go very far over the border; feel free to prove otherwise.
I'm not sure of how many overflights but there have been several. I heard it somewhere but i kow it's happening. here it is.....

Usually, hunting for missiles and reactors from the sky would be a job for the Air Force. But those spy drones that are flying over Iran, looking for nukes -- they belong to the CIA, according to Aviation Week.

pred_desert.jpg"They are using the I-Gnat and Predator [drones that the CIA] used early in the Afghanistan war... They focus on small areas, and that's what they need to find those dispersed [nuclear weapons development] sites," a senior Air Force official says. "The data are sent back to Beale [Air Force Base in California, via satellite]... The information is then separated by its code word [prefix] and sent to the proper agency."

Beale is the major intelligence exploitation center; processed information is then distributed, often by secure landline, to other bases such as Indian Springs auxiliary airfield near Las Vegas, where Predator missions are controlled.

The CIA [was the] first [American agency to use] armed Predators, although flown remotely by [Air Force] pilots, that were launched on combat missions from bases in Uzbekistan. Since both the Army and Air Force now operate similar [drones], the CIA's small fleet could be flown from the same bases in the theater or from small bases in remote areas of Afghanistan or Iraq.
www.defensetech.org...

doesn't say how many though. I will try to find more the article is VERY long so you might have trouble finding it.


Overflights of the USSR stopped rather early on after they proved they could shoot them down. Flying along borders might get you good press but it is hardly the wreckless disregard for international law you suppose it is. The Us has granted Russia the right to overfly the US with recce aircraft( a few times a year as i recall) as long as they provide the flight plans and that was what i tried to point out here..
Which could explain the bomber overflight. If you can provide sources we can solve this thread most likely.





[edit on 14-5-2006 by urmomma158]




posted on May, 14 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   

But Russia is the only country with a functional anti-ballistic missile defense system. There's a bragging right for you.
Yes that's true but that won't save them from all the nukes you know. It's cpability is limited and pretty soon we''l have our own defenses which will be composed of MEADS and THAAD.



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Crow
But Russia is the only country with a functional anti-ballistic missile defense system. There's a bragging right for you.


Service testing is one thing, War is a completely different creature! We're talking about hundreds or thousands of Live Nukes here. The test are one thing, they don't involve hundreds of missile coming at you from all directions.

Also, in a real war, they would also be facing air attacks with bombers and cruise missiles. The US still relies in the Triad system, which involves a three-pronged attack. Are the Russian really willing to risk an all out Nuclear war for bragging rights?

No Offense, but if the answer is yes, our members in Russia (assuming there are some) might want to consider new leaders at the next election. Even Nikita Krushev knew when to fold his hand and walk away! He pushed his luck in Cuba in 1962, but at the end of the day, he still knew when to quit!

Tim



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Well gost, Nikita Krushove didnt exactly quit . He came to an agreement with US to withdraw the missles from cuba only if US withdraw their from Turkey .



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Well gost, Nikita Krushove didnt exactly quit . He came to an agreement with US to withdraw the missles from cuba only if US withdraw their from Turkey .


True! I think I said that wrong. My point was he knew when it was time to look for other options instead of forcing his original idea (putting permanent missiles in Cuba).

My point was, there's a time for force and bluff, and there's a time for diplomacy and Negotiating. Nikita Krushove knew when to drop the bluff and go for the diplomacy.


Sorry if that came out wrong!

Tim



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Well gost, Nikita Krushove didnt exactly quit .

No, Nikita Kruschev may not have quit, but after his mishandling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was shortly, thereafter, removed from office by hardline Politburo.





He came to an agreement with US to withdraw the missles from cuba only if US withdraw their from Turkey.

Umm, not quite.
Though most of the U.S. Jupiter (Thor) IRBM missiles in Turkey were removed, the agreement between Kennedy and Kruschev was simply that the U.S. would promise to not invade Cuba and to end the quarantine. This is what was publically announced. The missiles in Turkey were an 'after-the-fact' non-public agreement.




seekerof



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Right, so let me get this straight.


The US were going to invade Cuba because of the missiles, which would obviously quickly escalate into a full total war...

But Russia let them off by taking the missiles away, for no real concession?



There are 2 possibilities:

1. The US agreed to remove the missiles sited in Turkey as its like-for-like, a virtually identical concession on each side.


2. The Russians wish for peace to continue... which is remarkably at odds with what most of the US media/history would have you believe.

[edit on 15-5-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Well if it's not legal why should it be credible.


Well i can understand how so few things make sense with your grasp of the language. The original article did not say where it got the material from and what i did was find out where it did and then posted the original source. Do you follow yet?


The US kep their U2 overflights ecret and didn't announce them publicly.


I assume you could not find any sources sighting direct overflights of the USSR later than the U-2 shoot down?


No i was simply pinting out if you could there's no point in telling everyone and annoumcing it because it's important.


Well it IS important and there is no way the US public would find out about their vulnerability from their own leaders.


I don't understand make your point cleaer . Russian news sources lie as well.


Yes there is lying on all sides.....


All media lies russian media is no exception there has been plenty of instances where that has happened. No news media is completely reliable.


The difference being that everyone KNOWS ( or have been so indoctrinated at least) Russian media lies while Western media is just 'suspect' instead of being looked at in the same way. Western media ( like most others) are completely unreliable if you do not know a great many things to start with.


I'm not sure of how many overflights but there have been several. I heard it somewhere but i kow it's happening. here it is.....


Well the moment the CIA gets involved i believe very little ( i almost always catch them in a lie of some sort) so if you have any other sources stating that regular armed forces units are involved i would much rather look at that.


doesn't say how many though. I will try to find more the article is VERY long so you might have trouble finding it.


I do not have a problem with reading books if it's properly sourced.


Which could explain the bomber overflight. If you can provide sources we can solve this thread most likely.


I am not the one who has trouble understanding my intent.
Just browse for "open skies act" if you wish to look at the information.

Stellar



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I've got one thing to say: Plasma Stealth.

Gotta be sure it works before you use it in combat



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Westpoint:

I believe you should investigate the people you source your information from as you seem to be thinking short term when attacking what i have said.

Do you know that the agenda of the "UCS"is to try disarm America ( and not really waiting for anyone else to follow suite meaning they want a weak America apparently) and that they will apparently do everything in their , apparently great, power to achieve these ends? Have you looked at their stance on environmental protection and the current American president? Have you looked at how they helped prevent American dominance in space and nearly everywhere else?

Concerning the "Nuclear Threat Initiative" i really must ask if you like Ted Turner. Do you have ANY idea who's policies and perspective you decided to back? I will have no problem ripping your 'evidence' apart ( and you deserve such treatment for not checking out all those volumes of source material i provided) but to preserve your credibility and my time i thought i should give you another chance. Try not to squander this one as well.

Stellar


[edit on 16-5-2006 by StellarX]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
I've got one thing to say: Plasma Stealth.

Gotta be sure it works before you use it in combat
lol!! You make me laugh how about IR missiles that use lock on after lauch on order form long waves and switch to IR seeker mode. Plasma waves act like a mirror with long waves. You can't just put up a plasma cloud and assume it will cover all bands and make you toally invisible.. Even cold plasma is very hot(cold is simply a relative term to hot plasma). Not to mention it leaves an ionized trail for us to track. cough Silent Sentry (great for spotting them) cough cough.Come on you can do better than that Maincloak.



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I believe you should investigate the people you source your information from as you seem to be thinking short term when attacking what i have said.


Attacking? This is a discussion, you are not open to evidence or material which states the opposite of what you are claiming? Besides, what matters here is the integrity of the information and its relevance, not the agenda of its source.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Attacking? This is a discussion, you are not open to evidence or material which states the opposite of what you are claiming?


Yes, 'Attacking' and i can tell the difference as i know your type plenty well. This would could become a 'discussion' the moment you start doing some homework instead of just sourcing the first few claims ( how many hours did you spend?) you found trying to refute my claims. I tried to point you to threads that would have indicated how much i have read on the topic but you instead chose to assume i MUST be the ignorant one( since you could not possible be, clearly) and promptly proceeded to typing up a 'response'. I am not objecting to the fact that you are disagreeing but the way you have chosen to go about it.


Besides, what matters here is the integrity of the information and its relevance, not the agenda of its source.


Which is why i object as both your sources lack integrity; something you would have known if you did ANY research. Should i assume from your response that your going to stand by by those sources without checking if there is much if any truth in what they said?

Stellar



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarXWell i can understand how so few things make sense with your grasp of the language. The original article did not say where it got the material from and what i did was find out where it did and then posted the original source. Do you follow yet?
Well if this has anything to do with the open skies act than this is simply overinflated bragging. If i found a flaw in the enemy's systems i wouldn't tell him about it,i would try to play on that weakness which is why i don't find the article very confusing.


I assume you could not find any sources sighting direct overflights of the USSR later than the U-2 shoot down?
I was talking of the flights before the shootdown. The UsSR didn't know of the overflights.


Well it IS important and there is no way the US public would find out about their vulnerability from their own leaders.
No, If russia found a weakness in our air defenses they should keep it secret. Either they were too stupid to keep it secret or talking BS.


Yes there is lying on all sides.....
Obviously


The difference being that everyone KNOWS ( or have been so indoctrinated at least) Russian media lies while Western media is just 'suspect' instead of being looked at in the same way. Western media ( like most others) are completely unreliable if you do not know a great many things to start with.
All media lies there's no point in pointing out lies if the opposing sides lie as well. There's no doubt Russian sources lie as well and so do other sources around the world.


Well the moment the CIA gets involved i believe very little ( i almost always catch them in a lie of some sort) so if you have any other sources stating that regular armed forces units are involved i would much rather look at that.
Perhaps in your imagination......


I do not have a problem with reading books if it's properly sourced.
You seem to be too lazy then.


I am not the one who has trouble understanding my intent. Just browse for "open skies act" if you wish to look at the information.
If i need to i will.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
codexkeeper, thanks for that


If you started in 1988 would that mean you continued in this role into the 1990's?

If so would you say there was an obvious change in the frequency of these incursions after 1990? This is what was puzzling me from my first post, if they stopped after the Soviet Union collapsed wht start again now? Or did they just carry on as before?


Not really any upshift in numbers as far as I recall, up to about 91-92 when I changed roles.

Cheers

CodexK



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Stellar why are you attacking westpoint's claims. All you do when someone corrects you is make baseless,irrelevantclaims among many others. Not to mention you deny what you said. Wellattacking your sources is very possible too concerning past history.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Well if this has anything to do with the open skies act than this is simply overinflated bragging.


Please, PLEASE learn to read/understand the English language before insulting people randomly due to your own lack of comprehension. I corrected you because you failed to understand the intent of my clarifying where the material where original sourced from. How hard is that to understand?


If i found a flaw in the enemy's systems i wouldn't tell him about it,i would try to play on that weakness which is why i don't find the article very confusing.


I believe that your confusions stems mostly from your inability to comprehend the intent of a article in English.


I was talking of the flights before the shootdown. The UsSR didn't know of the overflights.


So they managed to shoot down the first plane they detected? Bah. You really think they could not track any of the other and how did you arrive at that conclusions?


No, If russia found a weakness in our air defenses they should keep it secret. Either they were too stupid to keep it secret or talking BS.


Or it did happen and they are trying to send a clear political message?


Perhaps in your imagination......


I really have checked out the CIA's record and while they do traffic drugs and smuggle arms around the world they do not really get involved in dealing with 'facts' or 'truth' often or at all. If you want to impress me, or generally make your point and show up my ignorance, i would like a independent source stating that the US is current flying drones over Iranian strategic locations or even over large tracts of Iranian land.


You seem to be too lazy then.


I may be very many things but lazy when it comes to research is NOT one of those things. Whatever source material you provide will be read however much i dislike the experience.

Stellar



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
Stellar why are you attacking westpoint's claims.


Because he clearly does not have any perspective when it comes to the subject matter and it's not like i started it!


All you do when someone corrects you is make baseless,irrelevantclaims among many others.


Very few people can claim to have corrected me and neither you or Westpoint is likely to ever manage as much considering your 'research' methods. My claims may be irrelevent to YOU but i think that is largely due to the fact that you have such trouble understanding English and generally lacking the knowledge base to understand the larger picture.


Not to mention you deny what you said. Wellattacking your sources is very possible too concerning past history.


You are free to 'attack' my sources but do remember that your say so hardly means a thing so do remember to point out why the sources are no good. The reason i have suggested that neither of Westpoints sources should be used towards proving what his trying is because i have run into them in the past and i KNOW ( how many sources would you need?) their repeat offenders when it comes to lying and generally trying to diminish the threats posed to America security. One would think Westpoint could appreciate such a thing but lets wait and see is he puts his pride before American security.

Stellar



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
^^^^^^ Once again more rhetoric. Instead of confusion in my 2nd to last post i meant to write reliable. Why do you constantly deny the facts presented to you. Some of what you post is utter BS and your intent to cover up what you do not know.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Or it did happen and they are trying to send a clear political message?


Quite frankly we don’t, and cannot know, unless further information is released. As far as I’m aware the Russians have not offered any proof beyond their claim concerning this incident, and the USAF has not shown any evidence to dispute the claims. Hence our predicament. We can argue about which scenario is more likely and why, but when it comes down to it, we simply don't know what happened. Past precedents and public information can only get us so far.

Since I’m posting I might as well address one or two points. Stellar, if my sources are wrong, or false, then please feel free to correct me. I can say without hesitation that I do not have any bravado which will inhibit me from accepting (is shown) that my sources and views are wrong. Until then you should know that I care little about your comments toward me or my information.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join